Advertisement

Sarah Sands: To think global, first factor in the human scale

Tony Blair: argues that globalisation is inevitable: PA
Tony Blair: argues that globalisation is inevitable: PA

On a spring day, inside an ancient country church, my glamorous City daughter-in-law bashed away panic- stricken at the organ. She had been practising the hymns, accompanied by her cocker spaniel, for hours previously reserved for yoga. But if she did not volunteer to play the organ, there would be no music. That is how communities work. Professionally, my daughter-in-law counts as a citizen of the world. She works in international finance. She is a Londoner. Then, at weekends she is drawn into the quaint ties of village life. There, she is a citizen of the hamlet.

The contrasting personalities are now in conflict. Globalisation and technological perpetual progress are articles of faith in London. We like crowds but are less comfortable with neighbours. We find them “prying”, unlike social media.

I am selling our home at the moment and am amused that estate agents recommend no family photographs on display. There is a fluidity about the capital, and signs of someone else’s imprint or long-term relationships are mildly offensive. Personal freedom and lack of prejudice are the great qualities of cities. The disadvantages are loneliness and lack of integration.

Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s former adviser who became an ardent Brexiteer, saw the debate in terms of human versus dehumanising scale. He wanted power devolved away from juggernaut international organisations. His hero was the community organiser, his villain the bureaucracy of Brussels.

David Goodhart, in his book The Road to Somewhere, also argues that globalisation goes against human nature. He writes: “A rootless, laissez-faire, hyper-individualistic, London-like Britain does not correspond to the way most people live — or want to live.”

Tony Blair argues that globalisation is inevitable — “you might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer” — but nations can in fact intervene. The American tech giants have not cracked China or Russia. If Facebook cannot answer the Home Secretary’s instruction to solve encryption because it is global, you could create a national social media company. The joy of Facebook is its global reach, but it began on an American university campus and has kept its essential character, just got richer. We have a national broadcaster, the BBC, why not a UK version of Facebook? Sounds dreary? But UK rules, UK taxes.

The word innovation itself is no longer presumed innocent. Artificial intelligence is going to happen, as autumn follows summer. But should humans just surrender to superhumans? A new book by Mark O’Connell, To Be a Machine, takes apart the megalomania of transhumanism. He attacks it for its “mechanistic view of human life”. Straighten out the crooked timber of humanity and we may just sacrifice it.

The argument against Brexit is that it is stupid and irrational. That the British people have voted against their self-interest. I am struck by the fact that there is far less remorse among voters than you might imagine and I have been trying to work out why. I think it is that taking back control is not just a slogan, it is a profound human impulse. Globalisation needs to understand the human scale.

Sunday bliss: dead bodies and DIY

Sunday night is popular for snuggling up in front of the television with loved ones — to watch a woman being attacked by a colleague with a chainsaw. Line of Duty is really as beloved a British institution now as Bake Off. We all want to be bakers and we all want to be forensic scientists.

I loved the disdain for errors of craft in the online comments: “Any fule kno that using an electric saw on a dead body would spread DNA throughout the apartment.” And in reply from another viewer: “Absolutely. Polythene wrap, chest freezer for a couple of days then get a nice quiet bowsaw, not a bloody weedy electric thing or a bloody big, noisy chainsaw.” Line of Duty manages to combine a deep British love of crime detection with a deep British love of DIY.

Why Brexit will offer so much food for thought

The inability of technology to communicate its case is interesting. It was an accusation levelled during a debate the Evening Standard hosted last week about the future of food.

A panellist reflected that the public distrust of genetically modified crops was based on a lack of knowledge. The scientists and the companies they worked for were so delighted by the technology and its implications for tackling global food shortages that they never felt the need to explain it. They raced ahead of public opinion. Now we are starting to understand some of the technology in practical rather than supreme terms. It is marvellous to see The Archers leading the debate on drones.

A food producer at our debate explained that technology could help farmers predict and plan crops, perhaps avoiding, for instance, a cauliflower bulge. Food waste is an imbalance in supply and demand plus a bounty of choice. We should be thinking about husbanding the land better. The food producer said he was more excited by satellite mapping and soil technology than by changing the genetic make-up of a tomato. Although he did sound a bit wistful about keeping mushrooms fresher for an extra day.

Consumers will decide, and for now their hearts are with organic food. But Brexit means we must make our own rules on this, along with everything else, rather than follow European Union thinking. We are going to have to be a lot better informed.

When the men come out to play

It was touching to see so many men outside this weekend, enjoying the good weather. Weekend complexions changed from vampire white to ruddy. And all because television was showing international football rather than league matches.