Another Spectrum

Personal ramblings and rants of a somewhat twisted mind

Tag Archives: society


by 1 Comment

When Assumptions Meet Reality: A Few Quaker Anecdotes

Every now and then life hands you a moment that shows just how easily we mistake our own assumptions for universal truth. Some of these moments have nothing to do with religion at all — they’re simply reminders that the way we see the world is not the only way it can be seen.

Years ago, my wife told me she couldn’t eat a piece of fruit because it was “blue.” I looked at it. It was orange — a persimmon. Perfectly innocent. But in Japanese, unripe fruit is described as blue. The literal word didn’t carry the same meaning across cultures. Without shared context, the “plain meaning” wasn’t plain at all.

Or consider how in Māori culture mountains, rivers, and forests are understood as living entities. New Zealand law now recognises some of these as legal persons. Many Westerners misinterpret this as treating them as human, because they read the word “person” through a strictly Eurocentric lens. Again, the literal meaning isn’t literal at all unless you share the worldview behind it.

These moments remind me how easily we assume our own way of seeing is the only way. And nowhere is this more apparent than when people discover I’m a Quaker.

SPICES and the Fear of Indoctrination

A few years ago, in a discussion about indoctrination, I mentioned that I had raised my children according to Quaker values. I used the word values, not beliefs. Even so, several people gasped as if I’d confessed to locking my children in a basement with a stack of tracts.

One person even blurted out, “You don’t deserve to have kids. It’s disgusting to indoctrinate children.”

It took a while to convince them that all parents pass on values — whether they name them or not. And that Quaker values are not a list of doctrines but a set of ethical commitments often summarised as SPICES: Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, Equality, and Sustainability.

Once they realised I wasn’t secretly drilling my children in obscure theology, most of the alarm subsided. Mostly.

But it showed me how tightly some people equate “religion” with “indoctrination,” even when the reality is something quite different.

The Anti‑Religionist Interrogation

Then there was the social gathering where someone, after a few beers, declared that all religions are misogynistic, bigoted, intolerant, indoctrinate children, control people through fear of hell, and are a blot on society.

Normally I let such sweeping statements pass, but I was with a friend who has learned a fair bit about Quakerism from me. She bravely — or foolishly — interrupted and said, “That’s not true. Barry’s religion is none of those. Prove me wrong.”

I may have cringed.

The anti‑religionist, delighted by the challenge, began firing off yes/no questions.

“Does his religion have women clergy?”
“No.”

“Does it have gay clergy?”
“No.”

“Non‑European priests?”
“No.”

He smiled triumphantly. “See? That proves my point.”

My friend paused. “You haven’t asked whether they have straight cis‑male clergy.”

He frowned. “Well… do they?”
“No.”

At this point, his confidence wobbled. He moved on to doctrine.

“Do they teach original sin?”
“No.”

“The divinity of Jesus?”
“No.”

“The resurrection?”
“No.”

After a few more questions, all answered “No,” he threw up his hands and declared, “There’s no such religion,” and stomped off.

Some onlookers laughed — partly because he was known for his inflexible views, partly because he’d been outsmarted, and partly because they knew I’m a Quaker. Others looked confused, so I took the opportunity to explain the essence of Quakerism.

It was a funny moment, but also a telling one. For some people, a non‑authoritarian religion is literally unimaginable.

Homeopathy Christianity?

Another blogger once described Quakerism as “so watered down and diluted that it’s Homeopathy Christianity — totally ineffective.”

I admit I laughed. But it’s also wildly inaccurate.

If Quakerism is “ineffective,” it’s curious how much social change a few drops have produced: abolition, women’s suffrage, conscientious objection, restorative justice, LGBTQ inclusion, environmental protection. Not bad for something supposedly diluted.

But again, the assumption was clear: if a religion doesn’t tell you what to believe, doesn’t police your thoughts, and doesn’t threaten you with hell, then it must be meaningless.

Practice, Not Belief

All these stories point to the same misunderstanding: many people assume that religion is fundamentally about belief — about creeds, doctrines, and intellectual assent. And if a tradition doesn’t enforce belief, they assume it has nothing left.

But at the heart of Quakerism is practice, not belief.

Quakerism doesn’t ask you to believe the right things. It asks you to live the right things — as best you can, in community, with humility. And even here, there is no prescribed list of “right things.” There are guides that centre on relationships — peace, integrity, equality, community, simplicity, care for the earth — but ultimately it is left to each of us, individually and communally, to discern what right action looks like in the moment. It is a practice of continual listening rather than a rulebook of fixed answers.

And Quakerism isn’t unique in this. Many mainstream denominations — especially in Aotearoa — have branches that, in their own distinctive ways, also emphasise lived values over rigid doctrine. They, too, contain strands that are open to diversity, grounded in relationship, and wary of authoritarian certainty. Quakerism is simply one example of a wider truth: religion need not be coercive, dogmatic, or closed to interpretation.

Living peaceably is hard.
Living with integrity is hard.
Living simply in a consumerist world is hard.
Living equality in a hierarchical society is hard.
Living community in an individualistic culture is hard.
Living sustainably in a world of convenience is hard.

Quakerism doesn’t ask you to believe the right things. It asks you to live the right things — and to keep listening for what that means.

If that looks “wishy‑washy” or “diluted,” perhaps it’s because people are looking for doctrine where Quakers look for practice.


by 1 Comment

Why Panel Shows Could Be NZ’s Secret Weapon for Inclusive Conversations

The Problem With Global Streaming (Or, Why Other Platforms Didn’t Offer More Depth)

So here’s the thing—I’ve tried multiple streaming platforms, hoping to widen my perspective and discover content that truly reflects diverse voices. What I found was that while these platforms had more content overall, they didn’t necessarily offer more depth than TVNZ+. Instead, they seemed targeted at a broad, international audience, meaning local perspectives—especially those that challenge mainstream narratives—were few and far between.

That’s why I’ve stuck with TVNZ+. It’s one of the few places where I can see Aotearoa reflected back at me, not just in scripted dramas but in formats that allow real conversations, real humor, and real people to shine. And if we want to push the boundaries of representation, we need more unscripted formats—like panel shows—where diverse voices can speak for themselves.

Panel Shows: The Perfect Format for NZ’s Multicultural Voice?

We don’t just need more local content—we need the right kind of local content. And this is where I reckon panel shows could be an absolute game-changer.

Think about it: panel shows are casual, fast-paced, and driven by conversation, which makes them the perfect format for showcasing diverse voices. You chuck a mix of people on a stage—comedians, politicians, artists, activists—and let them bounce off each other. The beauty of it is that it’s unscripted, meaning people bring their own experiences, their own humour, and their own perspectives to the table.

Imagine an NZ-based panel show where:

  • Ethnic minorities share their experiences navigating biculturalism and multiculturalism.
  • Neurodivergent guests challenge society’s expectations of communication and thinking.
  • Rainbow community voices explore inclusion beyond just policy—it’s about lived realities.
  • Tangata whenua and Pākehā engage in honest kōrero about co-governance and identity.

It’d be part comedy, part political discussion, part “oh wow, I never thought about it like that.” In short? It’d be peak Kiwi TV.

How NZ’s Perspective Is Diverging From Other English-Speaking Nations

New Zealand’s approach to equity, governance, and social discourse is increasingly diverging from other English-speaking nations, largely due to the growing influence of Tikanga Māori principles. While countries like the US and UK are grappling with polarisation, partisanship, and isolationism, NZ has embraced collective, inclusive frameworks that prioritise relationships, respect, and shared responsibility.

Some key ways Tikanga Māori shapes NZ’s evolving perspective:

  • Consensus over conflict – Unlike the adversarial, winner-takes-all approach often seen in Western political discourse, Tikanga Māori emphasises whanaungatanga (relationships) and kotahitanga (unity), fostering collaborative decision-making.
  • Holistic storytelling – Māori narratives often weave together history, environment, and identity, offering a more interconnected worldview than the individualistic focus dominant in US and UK media.
  • Manaakitanga (care and respect) – This principle encourages inclusive, respectful dialogue, making NZ panel shows a potential model for constructive conversations rather than divisive debates.
  • Kaitiakitanga (guardianship) – NZ’s approach to environmental personhood and sustainability is deeply rooted in Māori perspectives, setting us apart from more corporate-driven environmental policies elsewhere.

By integrating these principles into panel show formats, NZ could create a uniquely inclusive space for discussing social issues, governance, and identity—one that challenges the polarisation seen in other English-speaking nations.

Final Thought: If We Build It, Will They Come?

The question isn’t whether New Zealand could lead the way in inclusive panel shows—it’s whether we’re willing to push for it. If local streaming platforms invest in this kind of programming, and viewers show up to watch, we could prove that alternative voices aren’t just valuable—they’re essential.

Because seeing the world from multiple perspectives isn’t just about fairness or human rights—it’s about finding new ways to understand each other, and creating narratives that bring people together instead of driving them apart. And honestly? I reckon that’s something the world could learn a thing or two from.

Footnote: You might notice a shift in tone recently—I’m leaning into a more conversational Kiwi style. Let me know if it makes things feel more personal and approachable!


by Leave a comment

Legislative Urgency: Is NZ Sacrificing Scrutiny for Speed?

New Zealand’s parliamentary system is marked by a distinct approach to law-making. Unlike bicameral systems found in many other democracies, where two houses mutually check one another, New Zealand operates with a single legislature. Its greatest safeguard comes in the form of select committees—panels of MPs that carefully scrutinise each bill. These committees invite public submissions, expert testimony, and thorough debate, ensuring that legislation is robustly vetted before it becomes law. Over recent decades, this process has been embraced as a cornerstone of New Zealand’s democratic tradition, providing transparency and accountability rarely seen elsewhere.

Urgency: Bypassing Tradition

Legislative urgency is an exception to this process. When a bill is passed under urgency, it skips the conventional select committee route and proceeds straight to a vote in Parliament, with very little opportunity for public or expert input. Several recent reports have raised concerns that the coalition government is increasingly relying on urgency to accelerate its legislative agenda—a tactic that significantly dilutes the publicly participatory nature of New Zealand’s law-making process. While fast-tracking can be justified in genuinely time-critical situations, its frequent use is viewed by many critics as a way to avoid the detailed scrutiny that select committees provide.

Evidence of an Urgency-Driven Approach

Recent media coverage paints a clear picture of this trend. An RNZ article, “The House: Hunker Down for a Week of Urgent Plod Sprinkled with Chaos”, describes a transformation in Parliamentary debate—from vibrant discussions to a more mechanised routine when urgency is declared . Similarly, Newsroom reported that the government set a record for the number of laws passed under urgency in its first 100 days, suggesting that this is becoming the default legislative pathway rather than an occasional tool for emergencies . Furthermore, 1News has highlighted the case of pay equity legislation, where the repeal was rushed through under urgency, denying affected parties a platform to offer input or challenge the proposal . An RNZ audio discussion, “Parliament: Why So Much Urgency?”, further elaborates on these issues, noting that while rapid responses are sometimes necessary, the overwhelming number of urgent bills points to a broader, more concerning political strategy .

The Distinctiveness of New Zealand’s Select Committee Process

For readers unfamiliar with New Zealand’s legislative culture, it is important to understand the indispensable role played by select committees. In New Zealand, every bill typically undergoes a comprehensive review by a select committee, which is made up of MPs from various parties. These committees not only scrutinise legislation in detail but also open their doors to public submissions, expert opinions, and stakeholder perspectives. This process ensures that policies are debated openly and that any potential issues are addressed before the bill becomes law. The select committee system is a unique hallmark of New Zealand democracy, a system that actively promotes transparency and public engagement in a way that many other nations—with multiple legislative layers—do not prioritise in the same manner.

The Debate: Is Urgency Always an Evil?

Of course, urgency has its place. As highlighted in the RNZ audio segment, there are occasions when a swift legislative response is warranted—be it for correcting urgent errors in the law or adapting quickly to budgetary demands. However, the current trend shows an alarming increase in its use beyond what would be considered a genuine emergency. Prominent voices in Parliament, such as those from the opposition, argue that passing more than a dozen bills in one session under urgency is not only unorthodox, it undermines the diligence that the select committees bring to the legislative process.

A Call for Balance and International Reflection

New Zealand’s experience offers a valuable lesson about balancing speed with scrutiny. The select committee process is not merely a procedural formality; it is the backbone of a deeply participatory and transparent legislative arena. When urgency becomes the go-to route for significant policy shifts—like the controversial repeal of pay equity laws—the risk is that major changes will be implemented without proper examination, robust debate, or public consent.

This trend invites broader reflection: Are similar shortcuts emerging in other democracies? In many countries, especially in times of political or economic crisis, legislators may resort to expedited processes that limit public debate and oversight. As global political climates become increasingly complex, how might democracies balance the need for rapid decision-making with the imperative of thorough scrutiny? Can systems modeled on New Zealand’s tradition—where public engagement through detailed committee work is paramount—serve as an inspiration, or are all democracies inevitably facing pressures to cut corners?

With voices from RNZ, Newsroom, and 1News echoing these concerns, it is clear that any shift towards a “speed over scrutiny” philosophy must be met with vigorous debate. Whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, the challenge will be ensuring that legislative expedience does not compromise accountability or the public’s right to be heard.


by 8 Comments

Democracy in Action: Unprecedented Public Engagement and the Select Committee Process

The Waitangi Treaty Principles Bill has received an unprecedented over 300,000 submissions! This is believed to be the highest number ever recorded for a piece of legislation in New Zealand. The Justice Committee even had to extend the submission deadline due to technical issues with the submission portal.

Think about it—that’s better than one submission for every seventeen citizens! The previous record was held by the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, which received just over 100,000 submissions in 2021. Unfortunately, submissions from the autistic community were not taken into consideration, so conversion practices on autistic people are still not prohibited. Many adult autistics consider ABA and some other “therapies” to be forms of conversion therapy. Submissions were made to the select committee asking for these practices to be included, but they were largely ignored. This remains a sore point for many autistics, including myself, as it highlights how our views are often overlooked by the neurotypical world.

The balance between participatory and representative democracy is crucial in a healthy society. The select committee process allows for meaningful public engagement while still maintaining a structure where elected representatives, who can dedicate their time and resources, make informed decisions on our behalf.

It’s heartening to see that many Kiwis are taking an active interest in the legislative process, which can lead to more inclusive and well-rounded policymaking. The opportunity to express views through submissions gives everyone a chance to contribute to the democratic process without the unrealistic expectation of direct involvement in every legislative detail.

At present, it’s a convention that bills go before a select committee, but governments do sometimes avoid the process by using urgency. Making the select committee process mandatory for all legislation could help ensure thorough scrutiny and public input. It’s concerning when the urgency process is used to bypass this vital step, as it risks undermining the democratic process and eroding public trust.

I would like to see legislation passed provisionally during real emergencies but requiring a subsequent review by a select committee. This could provide a balanced solution, allowing for swift action when necessary while still ensuring that proper deliberation and public consultation take place. Ensuring legislative processes remain transparent and inclusive is crucial for maintaining a healthy democracy.

New Zealand’s select committee process is quite unique. Almost all legislation is referred to a select committee, where anyone can make submissions in writing or in person. This extensive public consultation process is a hallmark of our democratic system.

While other democracies also have select committees, the level of public involvement in New Zealand is notable. The ability for individuals and organisations to present their views directly to Parliament is a significant aspect of our legislative process.

Public engagement is a cornerstone of a vibrant democracy. Select committee submissions provide a vital channel for citizens to express their views and hold legislators accountable. This level of transparency and inclusivity helps counterbalance the influence of powerful interests and ensures that diverse perspectives are considered in the legislative process.

The ability for ordinary citizens to participate directly in shaping laws is a powerful tool for fostering a more equitable and just society. It’s encouraging to see such a strong commitment to maintaining these democratic principles in New Zealand.

the above is a follow up to my 16 Jan, 2025 article Submission to Justice Committee (1)


by 3 Comments

Are We All Just Bullying the Autistic Kid?

I’m referring to the person who is the power behind Tesla, X, SpaceX and the current US president.

My unreserved opinion is No!

His behaviour in the days since the fascist salute “incident” prove to me that his is indeed a fascist.

The YouTube video below by a fellow autistic goes into this in depth.


by 2 Comments

Navigating the Digital Oligarchy: New Zealand’s Struggle with Global Tech Giants

In an age where a handful of digital titans wield unprecedented influence over our daily lives, New Zealand finds itself at a crossroads. The recent opinion piece published in The Conversation sheds light on a pressing issue: the increasing dominance of global tech companies and the nation’s challenge in regulating their sprawling reach and impact.

The term “digital oligarchy” isn’t just a catchy phrase; it’s a stark reality. Companies like Meta, X, Alphabet, and others have crafted digital ecosystems that are deeply embedded in society’s fabric. From shaping public discourse to influencing elections, their power extends far beyond mere platforms for connection or information. For New Zealand, a nation that prides itself on democratic values and social cohesion, this poses a significant dilemma.

The Catalyst of Conflict

Recent global events, such as the turmoil in the Middle East, have had ripple effects that reach our shores. Online platforms have become hotbeds for the spread of hate speech, misinformation, and polarising content. These digital spaces, governed by algorithms designed to maximise engagement, often amplify the most extreme voices. The New Zealand government, recognising the potential harm to its citizens and social harmony, finds itself grappling with how to mitigate these risks.

But here’s the crux of the matter: these tech giants operate on a global scale, often with little regard for national borders or local regulations. Their policies are typically crafted with a broad brush, aiming to appease international markets rather than addressing the nuanced needs of individual countries. This global-local disconnect leaves nations like New Zealand in a precarious position, striving to protect their citizens without the leverage to enforce meaningful change on these platforms.

Historical Hurdles in Regulation

Back in 2019, following the Christchurch terror attacks—which were horrifyingly live-streamed—the urgency to regulate social media platforms became palpable. The New Zealand government initiated efforts to introduce legislation that would hold these companies accountable for harmful content disseminated through their channels. However, despite the moral imperative and public outcry, progress has been sluggish.

Part of the challenge lies in the asymmetry of power. Tech companies have vast resources at their disposal, including legal teams adept at navigating and, when necessary, evading regulatory frameworks. Moreover, their influence isn’t just technological; it’s economic. They contribute significantly to economies through taxes, employment, and technological advancement, making governments wary of pushing too hard against them.

The Democratic Dilemma

At its core, this struggle isn’t just about controlling content; it’s about safeguarding democracy itself. The manipulation of information flow can sway public opinion, alter election outcomes, and deepen societal divides. The power to control narratives was once the domain of governments and traditional media. Today, it’s concentrated in the hands of a few tech moguls who operate with minimal oversight.

New Zealand, with its commitment to fairness and transparency, must ask itself: How do we reclaim agency in this digital landscape? The answer isn’t straightforward. Imposing strict regulations could backfire, leading to accusations of censorship or provoking retaliatory measures from the tech companies. On the other hand, inaction leaves the populace vulnerable to the whims of algorithmic biases and unchecked misinformation.

Seeking Collaborative Solutions

Perhaps the path forward lies in collaboration rather than confrontation. By joining forces with other nations facing similar challenges, New Zealand can amplify its voice on the global stage. Collective pressure may encourage these companies to adopt more responsible practices that respect local laws and cultural contexts.

Additionally, investing in digital literacy programmes can empower citizens to navigate the online world more critically. An informed public is less susceptible to manipulation and can contribute to a healthier digital discourse. Education, paired with thoughtful regulation, could strike the balance between protecting free expression and mitigating harm.

A Call to Action

The digital oligarchy isn’t an insurmountable force. History has shown that society can adapt and reign in unchecked power when the collective will is strong. It’s imperative for New Zealand to not only recognise the gravity of the situation but to act decisively. This isn’t just about regulating technology—it’s about preserving the integrity of our democracy and the well-being of our communities.

As we stand at this intersection of technology and society, the choices we make now will reverberate for generations. Let’s engage in this crucial conversation, challenge the status quo, and forge a path that aligns technological advancement with our core values.


by 2 Comments

God Defend New Zealand: A Cultural Perspective

This post started off with the intention of responding to a tongue-in-cheek comment by an Aussie blogger (sorry, I forget who) in July 2024. They claimed that Kiwis were more Christian than Australians because our national anthem makes a plea to God, while the Australian anthem doesn’t. I could have countered that their anthem boasts about how wonderfully blessed their nation is, while ours is a humble plea for peace and protection from war, dissension, envy, hate, and corruption. Thus, ours is the nobler of the two anthems.

But then, I was struck by the thought: In perhaps the most secular nation in the Western world, why is there so little opposition to having a national anthem that calls upon a deity to protect us from hate, envy, dissension, etc.?

Thomas Bracken, an Irish-born, Australian-raised immigrant to NZ, most certainly had the Christian God in mind when he wrote the poem that eventually became our national anthem. But there’s no necessity for that perspective to remain unchanged. Insisting that today, after 150 years, it still literally identifies a 19th-century Christian God seems way off the mark to me.

I think it depends on perspective. As of the 2023 Census, those with no religious affiliation outnumber those who identify as religious, and Christians make up approximately 32% of the population. Many who identify as religious or spiritual are non-theists, non-realists, or otherwise lack a belief in the supernatural. Mainline churches consist of congregations that range from traditional forms of Christianity to progressive and liberal congregations often described as “secular Christianity.” So one must ask, why is “Aotearoa”/”God Defend New Zealand” regarded so fondly by Kiwis irrespective of their religiosity or lack thereof?

Despite the religious language in the national anthem, I think non-religious New Zealanders still find ways to connect with it:

  • Cultural and Historical Significance: For many, the anthem represents New Zealand’s history and cultural heritage. Singing it can evoke a sense of national pride and unity, regardless of religious beliefs.
  • Symbolic Interpretation: Many people interpret the references to God more symbolically, seeing them as expressions of hope, protection, and goodwill for the country rather than literal religious appeals. This is my position.
  • Respect for Tradition: Even if we don’t share the religious sentiments, many non-religious Kiwis respect the anthem as a traditional part of national ceremonies and events. Other examples would be the haka, pōwhiri, and karakia, which have become part of NZ culture.
  • Focus on the Māori Version: The Māori lyrics, which emphasize community and well-being, can resonate with broader values that transcend specific religious beliefs. I strongly relate to this.
  • Personal Adaptation: Some individuals might mentally substitute the word “God” with concepts like “nature,” “spirit,” or “unity” to align the anthem with their personal beliefs. This fits well with my perceptions.

Overall, the anthem’s role in fostering a sense of belonging and identity for most New Zealanders outweighs the use of religious language.

Current convention is to sing the first verse of the Māori version of the anthem followed by the first verse of the English version (there are five verses in each version). The Māori version, while conveying similar ideas as the English version, is not a direct translation.

I have chosen this YouTube clip because it includes a translation of the Māori version.


by Leave a comment

How Tech Billionaires Screwed Us All

In a recent article by Rolling Stone, the increasing dominance of tech billionaires in shaping social media landscapes is brought into sharp focus. The piece investigates how unprecedented wealth and power are being utilized to steer digital platforms in ways that prioritize personal interests and political stances.

Noteworthy figures such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Peter Thiel are prominently mentioned, highlighting their outsized influence over popular platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and emerging social networks. The article meticulously details the significant changes these titans have initiated, ranging from algorithm adjustments to content moderation policies. Such alterations often align with their individual ideologies, thereby affecting millions of users worldwide.

Furthermore, the Rolling Stone article delves into the broader societal implications of this trend. It questions the ethical dimensions of allowing a select few to have such control over the digital public square and explores potential threats to democracy and free expression. Through interviews with industry insiders and digital rights advocates, it presents a nuanced discussion on the balance between innovation and responsibility.

As we navigate an era where digital influence equates to immense power, this article serves as a timely reminder of the need for vigilance and accountability. By following the trajectory of tech billionaires and their ventures, we gain a deeper understanding of the evolving dynamics within our digital ecosystems.

You can find the full article on RollingStone.


by 8 Comments

Why autistic people must be at the heart of autism research

The Conversation article, “Why Autistic People Must Be at the Heart of Autism Research,” highlights the historical exclusion of autistic voices in autism research and the resulting detrimental impacts. The article underscores the significance of centring autistic perspectives to drive more relevant and humane outcomes. Despite advancements, funding for autism research still predominantly goes to non-autistic researchers, often leading to pathologising and dehumanising studies. The article advocates for prioritisation autistic perspectives in research to address genuine needs and improve the well-being of the autistic community.

You can read the full article on The Conversation.


by 4 Comments

Hayek’s bastards

In a thought-provoking piece, Dame Anne Salmond explores the consequences of unchecked neoliberal policies in her article, “Hayek’s Bastards,” on Newsroom. Salmond reflects on how these economic doctrines have shaped New Zealand and highlights the urgent need for a philosophical shift. She argues that the relentless pursuit of profit and individualism has led to significant social and environmental costs, drawing parallels to the profound and often destructive influence of neoliberalism worldwide. For those of us whose concerns align with Salmond’s, her analysis resonates deeply. It’s a timely reminder of the importance of re-evaluating our societal values and the need for more inclusive and sustainable approaches to governance. Much like Salmond, I believe that we must critique and rethink these ingrained systems to foster a more equitable and harmonious future. By sharing her insights, I hope to spark conversations and encourage a broader understanding of these critical issues.

Read the full article on Newsroom.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started