User:Francis Neary

I was born and raised in Dublin, Ireland and this, together with travelling and working in many countries around the world has given me a broad analytical tendency, which, when coupled with a broad educational and academic range of interests (science, medicine, creative writing, Irish literature, theatre, history, English language teaching and assessment, traditional and non-traditional teaching methodologies, education reform, politics, economics, arbitration/mediation/law) gives me some small license to contribute to an eclectic range of topics. Social justice, protesting for development and progress, employing bold statements to stimulate discussion/debate are, used wisely, valuable tools to stimulate change and reform of those things IN NEED OF change and reform. Notwithstanding this, I have a critical and underlying (perhaps ironically) conservative nature, valuing culture, community, language, accents, racial identities and uniqueness, considering everybody to be imbued with the same elements of equality, rights to justice and freedoms, sometimes REGARDLESS of their own past actions or ill-treatment of others.

With regard to religion (specifically not meaning spirituality), I contend that the resulting benefits of belief in the supernatural, mystical, superstitious which do not implicitly contribute to the progress of humans as a species are anathemous to membership of the global community of peoples of the world and, any such benefits to humanity seen in the past are outweighed in the modern era by the tendency of organised religions to (to paraphrase Charles Stewart Parnell) "halt the march of mankind's progress", that religions, by their very nature are in conflict with science and reason and DO attempt to place a ne plus ultra and a barrier to the organic, social and intellectual developments of humans. In principle, such progress does often (certainly, in my opinion, NOT ALWAYS)require criticism and oversight, but I contend that an active, educated and informed populace (with huge responsibilities to be shouldered by individuals and their instinctive and fundamental striving for objectivity (perhaps “truth” would require a predominance of context) (and being responsible for their actions and acceptance of the consequences of these), governments (to facilitate the development of the people and not simply their economies), international agencies of oversight (like the UN and international social and legal systems, to fill the lacunae often resulting from actions/inactions by governments), media/news agencies (with the almost sacred duty of honesty and ethics) and organisations/institutions charged with delivering and applying education to the world, should provide the balance to ensure these developments and desired evolution of the species of mankind. I purposely and explicitly exclude 'social engineering' of the species, save where such medical/scientific intervention would prevent avoidable and unnecessary pain and suffering to the species but not including any interventions which would augment human attributes solely for the purpose of creating physical dominance over other species; we are already a highly ego-centric species with mental and cerebral finesse sufficient to determine an intellectual solution to all problems.

Having said all of the above, I should appear, or perhaps give the apprehension that I present the image of a would-be new-age internationalist liberal/libertarian but at the same time I'm opposed to current concepts of "globalism" because from my experience (and yes, I, like most people who can be classified as “westerner”) have personally benefitted from the effects of globalism) the only objectives of this are economic, expanding markets and indelibly altering societies and cultures and to the detriment of the targeted regions. Any social benefits resulting from globalism should be provided as human rights not, as is currently the case, as a trade of cultural and unique identities for basic healthcare and education. Forcing regions or nations to open their markets so companies can sell things which are culturally dangerous in the originating country (alcohol and cigarettes) or are slowly being determined as being 'planet destroyers', such as carbon-based fuels or industries (which are increasingly being examInes ethically in the so-called first world) simply to continue financial rewards for ethically-queationable companies opens an ethically appalling vista in the future of the world and suggests a homogenised population of drones or worker insects in the future. Socially or demographically, my origins, though not directly associated with historical evils like racism and specifically, slavery, they were closely and, in at least a historical sense, economically associated with these, as are any natives of the British Isles and much of Europe.

Environmentally, I tend to the conservative/preservative mindset but with the realistic awareness that the planet has naturally seen extinctions which were biologically necessary or unavoidable.

As a repeatedly arising final question: should we preserve our species at all costs, if in doing so we knowingly condemn our planet or other life-forms to extinction? And with a long and unfortunate history of anthropocentrism, can this always be justified?