Relative Freedom to Speak

Yesterday I questioned whether economic “growth” can help to slow planetary warming. It is my opinion that it cannot, it will exacerbate it causing more heating. People, in particular politicians, are unwilling to let go of the “growth” mantra because without it there would be a gaping policy void. They pin their election hopes on this notion.

What would we do without an economic policy which has brought so much inequality, wealth for a few {and happiness for millions} via the exploitation of natural resources in other people’s lands?

I will speculate that were I employed at a well-funded august institution with strong links to corporate sponsors, I would be unable to state the above opinion in public without censure of some kind. The corporates might indicate, over a quiet canapé, that such a view is unlikely to enhance chances for future funding. We cannot have radicals upsetting the boat / gravy train / PR opportunity. Research funding is the raison d’être for many ambitious institutions. Upon which side is the bread buttered?

Because I can be seen as an eccentric git, living in the wilds with no power by association I can offer my opinion. Lacking institutional kudos few are likely to take me seriously and I can be written off. As a “nobody” I have a relative freedom to speak. I am not even worth bothering about. I can be classified as a disgruntled burn-out has-been who is a failure and who was unable to hack it in the topflight. He is a loner, a weirdo, and an outcast.

I have no “superiors”, no line manager, no boss, to call me in for a word. I do not belong to any societies from which my membership might be withdrawn. There is not a blind dog’s chance that I will ever seek any research grant funding ever again.

I can have a chat with the cat and the heron, but they are not concerned with human politics.

So, I have a relative freedom to speak if only to and with myself…