Armchair economists

First published in Column 8 on the 27^th May, 1992

On the bus home the other evening, a neighbour and I (he also bearded and bespectacled) solved the whole matter of the cost of public transport. Such things are easily achieved by armchair economists.

Believe it or not, we didn’t even consider the silly idea of adding a couple of cents onto the petrol prices in order to make people use the buses. Whatever dream-world economist came up with that one ought to go back to the first year commerce class. Petrol prices have gone up and down so often in the past few years that a couple more cents per litre are hardly going to be noticed. Just another tax to bear.

To make motorists sit up and take notice, the price of petrol would have to triple, or worse, petrol would have to be completely rationed.

In the past, my neighbour and I agreed, the city’s approach to public transport problems has invariably been to reduce the buses and increase the prices.

Our solution, which needn’t involve the Government at all, is to increase the buses and cut the prices. My neighbour, more radical than I, even said, ‘Make the buses free!’

People go for something free, after all. That’s why we think it’s cheaper to pop in the car to go to town. We have this mental block about the cost of running our cars: because nobody makes us pay as we get in the door we think it’s free. As for kids brought up with wheels for legs, they think cars run on fresh air.

The great advantage of our own private motor vehicles is that we can drive from door to door. In fact, if we can’t, we say: Parking’s such a problem in the city.

Cars are preferred over public transport because in the city they’re acceptable, parkable and convenient.

In that case, let’s cut out their acceptance and parkability and convenience. Make cars illegal in town. Make a belt round the city area (the Seat Belt?), and only let vehicles through that have commercial reasons to be there, or which are needed to transport people with disabilities.

Remove all parking buildings, and parking spaces. In one stroke you’d remove an awful lot of the hassle of going to town in the first place. Gone would be that dreadful searing of the soul: where will I find a park? Gone would be the aggression engendered by vying with another driver for the single parking space left outside the shop you want to visit, or the confrontation with a parking officer.

In fact, the city could save a good deal of money on parking management and meter maintenance.

Once cars were unwelcome, the city would have to provide frequent mini-buses. I’d be pleased if they got rid of their present smelly diesel, raucously noisy, quacking and grinding buses altogether.

In the past trolley bus public transport used to be super silent – unless the driver lost his pole! And the only noise cable-cars made was the clang of the bell. Neither left pollutants behind.

If the buses weren’t free, all the money the city earned in public transport as a result of our solutions would allow them to bring a combination of these modes back.

Armchair economics. Just think of the creative energy hundreds of public transport passengers would release, if we all did this amount of lateral thinking on a 10-minute bus trip.

Courtesy: Time's Up! Environmental Organization

I’m somewhat horrified to read this column thirty-four years later, because it seems that the City Council, over the last few years, has taken the words of this article seriously and is attempting to remove cars from the city forever. Bikes are the only mode of transport given a hearty Yay by our Councillors, forgetting that Dunedin, a city of hills, isn’t the greatest place to cycle around – especially if you’re older – and that bikes are more than useless when it comes to moving things other than people from place to place. There is a place for bikes, but not as a replacement for vehicles with a bit of get up and go.

I can’t remember now who my bearded and bespectacled neighbour was in this instance, and I can’t remember whether this was actually a tongue-in-cheek piece or not. I hope it was.

Dalai Lama

 First published in Column 8 on the 20^th May 1992 

I was pleased to see hundreds of people packing the Town Hall to hear the Dalai Lama speak. I was pleased because it meant New Zealanders haven’t yet lost sight of the fact that we’re not just physical creatures set in physical bodies living in a physical environment.

The enthusiastic hundreds proclaimed that a desire for insight into spiritual matters isn’t yet dead in the hearts of New Zealanders, in spite of what we may be inclined to think when we look each day at the news.

The words that the Dalai Lam was reported as saying mightn’t immediately appear to have a spiritual ring about them, but to deny their spiritual content would be foolish. The man is, after all, primarily a spiritual leader, not a political one.

The Dalai Lama was right to say that compassion is a necessary basis for world peace. It’s no wonder the audience resoundingly agreed.

He’s right to say that tolerance and forgiveness for one’s enemies are also necessary. We love to hear a man say these kinds of things, because we know there is truth there.

But as the courtroom oath states, we are to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As much as I’d like, I cannot accept as the truth his thought that people are naturally gentle. To say such a thing is to be at odds with the facts surrounding us. And not just the facts surrounding us, but the true truth that’s within us.

We know in our inner hearts that we’re not naturally gentle, any more than we’re naturally kind, or generous, or peaceful or tolerant. To blame the failure of humankind on the military establishment begs the question. Isn’t the military establishment made up of human beings too?

Yes, we would all love peace on earth. Yes, we would all love to see human beings living tolerantly, compassionately and unselfishly with each other. Yes, we know it has to start with us, as individuals. None of these things are wrong in themselves. But a tree with bad roots won’t ever be a good tree.

As any of us know when we’re trying to give up some ingrained habit, it ain’t easy. When we try to be generous and tolerant and compassionate we succeed in our own strength, for a time. Then along comes some person who by a piece of quite perverse behaviour wipes away all our generosity and tolerance and compassion with one swift stroke. And down we fall again.

I agree, we have to start with ourselves. Trying to force other people to act rightly will never work. But as we all know in our heart of hearts, there’s a cross-current that sweeps through every good action we try to do and sucks us under. The good that we want to do, we don’t, and the evil we don’t want to do, we do.

Who will save us from the perversity that’s in our own nature? There’s only one person, and it isn’t the Dalai Lama, nor even his Buddha.

This person, who also preaches tolerance and compassion and forgiveness of one’s enemies, preaches something more: He insists on telling people where the real problem lies, that we’re not gentle by nature, but warped. And because many people won’t listen to His message, they fail to hear the solution, which is also in Him: Jesus Christ.

I love to ride on the train that puffs out Generosity, and hoots Tolerance, and whistles Compassion. I can forget my disagreeable nature and feel good – for a time.

But it still leaves me with a problem: all the positive noises in the world won’t get us to our destination if the train is going the wrong way.

Dalai Lama, 1992, courtesy O Globo

This column received a number of letters to the Editor.

27.5.92

Regarding Column Eight by Mike Crowl (Wednesday, May 20), Mike Crowl, it seems, didn’t clearly understand the message the Dalai Lama was offering. The Dalai Lama says people are gentle by nature. He means exactly this, and is not at odds with the facts surround us. we are all born without any predisposition to violence, cruelty, etc, we learn all of these things from our environment. Mr Crowl writes that in his inner heart he knows he is not gentle. I suggest that he has to look deeper, exactly the Dalai Lam’s message. By finding compassion for others within ourselves we are attaining the highest spiritual goals, and it is there within reach of us. The teachings of the Dalai Lama parallel that of Jesus Christ. They are both on the same train, heading for the same destination.

J. Watson.

We thought Mike Crowl’s dismissal of the Dalai Lama’s teachings as misguided and inadequate (Midweek, May 20) was disappointing and ungenerous. The Dalai Lama’s message of compassion, toleration and forgiveness is not very different from the biblical injunction to ‘love thy enemies.’ What is particularly significant is that he and his followers, who of all the people in the world have cause to hate, put their own beliefs into practice and steadfastly refuse to translate their own brutally enforced exile from their own country into hatred and violence. They work patiently for the day when their land will be restored to them. If followed more widely, the Dalai Lama’s example could transform our world. It deserves both our praise and our emulation.

Tim Jones and Barbara Frame – Peace Action Dunedin.

31.5.92

We would like to congratulate Mike Crowl on the very good column in each Star Midweek. We read with interest his comments and it is very pleasing to have someone standing for Christian values on a regular basis.

Lance and Lois Woodfield.

Letters must have continued into the next two issues on the 3^rd and 10^th June, but I don’t appear to have these.

17.6.92

In a letter in the Weekender (7/6/92) a correspondent under the cover-name ‘Truth’ criticizes the religion of Buddhism with a quote from The Road to Mandalay. It is just a hundred years since Kipling’s poem was published in Barrack-room Ballads. It still makes a stirring song. But the British soldier is interested only in memories of the Burma girl and the flying fishes. For any understanding of Buddhism he gets no marks at all. the last thing that the Buddha would have wanted was to be called ‘the Great Gawd Budd;’ he was a teacher of his way of enlightenment and compassion. Images of the Buddha are reminders of this and to call them ‘idols’ is just to repeat and old soldier’s ignorant dismissal. The Dalai Lama represents the Tibetan form of Buddhism. All are free to agree or disagree with this teaching, as with any religion in our world. But the first requirement surely should be to listen first, in order to get the picture right without misrepresentation or prejudice. Some of the Dalai Lama’s compassion and warm humanity might help us on the way.

Albert C Moore.

I agree with your correspondents (7/6/92) regarding the greatness of the Dalai Lama but I cannot sit by any longer without comment when they (and others) promote the cults of personality and belief in the name of truth. Listen. There is only one way to God and that is to love God. Jesus Christ certainly recommended it. Loving God has nothing to do with childish cults of dependency created by short-sighted people misinterpreting the teachings of enlightened beings such as Jesus Christ, Krishna, Buddha or Mohammed. Such cults are divisive and lead to bigotry, racial and cultural intolerance and unhappiness. Of course loving God includes loving your neighbour.

G.F.G

The Dalai Lama’s visit to Dunedin seems to have unleased a tremendous response via the very worthwhile platform provide by ‘Mailbag.’ From the torrent of Christian drivel (apparently based on the writings found in old books) to the karmic blatherings of some would-be Buddhists, devout atheists such as myself are enjoying a smorgasbord of entertainment. See you in hell!

Lucifer

The only conclusion one can draw from the correspondents’ recent letters is that New Zealand is still a Christian country, because the population is not tolerant to those having a religion other than Christianity. What we can learn from the Dalai Lama is that when the Chinese invaded Tibet, all they did was take that country’s political freedom. Although Tibetans have no freedom of politics, they do have a freedom of religion in that they are not involved with Christianity. The Dalai Lama has made Buddhism easier to follow than Jesus who made it impossible to be a good Christian (Matthew 7, v 13-14). Although New Zealanders are free to choose any political party, they do not take advantage of religious freedom which is enjoyed in many countries.

C.J.

I am saddened by the majority of the correspondence about the Dalai Lama’s message which is treating Buddhism and Christianity as rivals. Surely religions are not sports teams. This area of life is more important than winning an argument by defeating a rival with quotes from ‘authorities,’ or simply saying ours is the best way therefore we can’t learn from others. At the Dalai Lama’s morning talk I noted he did not indulge in negative comparisons. Instead he described the essential features of the major religions, with reference to what they had in common and where they differed, and then he went on to describe the Buddhist path without putting down other religions. The view of Mike Crowl, and his supporters, is based on the doctrine of original sin. His is an interpretation of the Bible which I see as a major reason for many people rejecting this type of Christianity as it engenders much guilt and anxiety in people brought up with this view of humanity. Just [as] the fatalistic interpretation of the karma conception in Buddhism can be seen as a misunderstanding, the doctrine of original sin is also a source of misunderstanding in Christianity. No religion is free of abuses or misunderstandings perpetuated by people who claim to be its adherents. A ‘we are right, they are wrong’ attitude increases the likelihood of this. There is a lot of wisdom in the Bible, especially in the sayings of Jesus Christ. Is he not the one who preached love and forgiveness, and said, ‘Judge not lest you be judged?’ See Matthew 7:1-5. I look forward to the day when all people can respect our common spirituality, as it is expressed in most religions, and learn by sharing the wisdom and insights from these sources.

Eli Kerin

For those of us who were fortunate enough to hear and see him, the visit of the Dalai Lama was a real event. His humility, humanity and courageous witness to non-violence lifted the spirit. His infectious humour was a delight. It is sad therefore, that there have been some rather extraordinary negative reactions to his coming. One hopes that they do not dismay those who organised his visit with such exemplary courtesy, and that they are not taken to be in any way representative of the wider Christian community. Let us hope rather that this visit will provide a catalyst for an informed and self-critical dialogue between Christian and Buddhists. One suspects that this is what the majority of the Dunedin community would like to see, too.

Rev Peter Matheson.

In the latest Listener, A K Grant mentions that the Dalai Lama wrote a poem praising ‘gentle’ Chairman Mao, one of the most evil, bloodthirsty, tyrants of all time. Since the Dalai Lama was part of Tibet’s dictatorship of Buddhist monks, it is yet more proof that he is a cunning politician now doing a hypocritical ‘human rights’ U-turn to curry favour with other politicians. Jesus Christ warned: ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ The fruits of Buddhism are poverty, disease, child brothels, absence of women’s rights etc – quite unlike NZ. A letter, June 10, implies that a person born blind must be extremely evil, and richly deserving to suffer. Jesus Christ was asked if a man born blind had sinned, or his parents had sinned to cause the blindness. He emphatically said no (John 9). Since karma victimises the less well off, they can expect no help. The rich and healthy were so good in a past life, they must be super spiritual. Rather like the Dalai Lama’s beloved Mao, no doubt. The writer seems to be anti-abortion although many karmic believers may disagree on that. It seems that one can decide what is sin and what is not so how can anyone know if they are near to being perfect after all these fictional lives they cannot remember? Most people should be perfect by no – crime, wars, greed etc prove the opposite. Why be punished for a past life which is unknown? Where do all the extra souls come from as world population explodes. They obviously are not evolving to perfection. Are they rats, snakes and sacred cows from past lives? They certainly get treated better than people in the karma-believing countries. The utter absurdity and destructiveness of karmic beliefs is still self-evident and always will be.

Realist.