Betty and Anne giggled as they read the descriptions of potential mates on their dating apps. They remembered their mother's advice not to meet anyone alone, or to travel beyond their own town, or to believe the stories of wealth or uniform pictures of good looks. "Well, I will not settle for less than a millionaire" said Betty. Then Anne said "Look, here is the only ugly picture, a man with a blue beard, and he lives in that huge house on the edge of town. Wait, I'll get an invitation for us both.".
Bluebeard turned out to be suave and sophisticated, and held great parties in his richly-furnished mansion, and if anyone ever expressed any doubts about him, it was that no-one knew what had happened to his previous wives. Betty was won over by a life of material abundance, and agreed marriage. Bluebeard claimed he was going on a business trip and handed over the security system's master card. "Do not go into the panic room in the basement, else you'll be sorry, but otherwise have the run of the place, invite your friends round!" he told her. When Betty swiped the card in the panic room door, she did not immediately notice the card's strip had changed colour, she was too busy discovering that her new husband's favourite hobby was dismembering wives. Foolishly confronting him when he returned from his fake business trip, Betty couldn't hide the altered card, and Bluebeard chided her: "You have had your part of the bargain, and now I will have mine". But when she begged for pity, her sister Anne in the next room heard her, texted their brothers, who arrived just in time to do Bluebeard in with baseball bats.
These example simulation incidents are based on an estimation of balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They are restricted to England as hosts, winners and team most fouled against. Other teams’ players also dived (like Germany’s Magull). There may be some overcounting during the later stages of each knockout match due to the broadcast director switching from replaying incidents (in slow motion from various angles) to showing crowd and bench shots, for whatever reason.
Incidents
England team simulation and related incidents estimated on balance of probabilities, Women's Euros 2022
Rachel Brown-Finnis: “Very, very clever; knows her role as a number 9”
Free kick to England
Feigning injury
Own half.
4‒0
White
35:34
t=0h51m24s
RC: “White has been unplayable at times, so clever”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
7‒0
Toone
73:40
t=1h46m59s
No foul
Over-claiming?
Opponent's penalty box.
England vs Northern Ireland (England had already qualified, Northern Ireland had already been knocked out, before the match had started)
2022-07-15
0‒0
Bronze
1:37
t=0h36m26s
RC: “A bit of a delayed decision by the referee. Foul given. Kirsty McGuiness thought she was away, indicates she thought she got the ball there, Gail [Redmond].”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Stanway
16:55
t=0h47m43s
RC: “Stanway just lost her footing… White is appealing for something” RBF: “She’s been success before in her appeals.” RC: “Worth a try.”
No foul
Over-claiming?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒0
Mead
19:23
t=0h50m11s
RC: “Mead nutmegs McKenna, can’t get past her.” RBF “Mead will want to rethink how she reacted. Nutmegged, a great bit of skill, but you’ve got to get past her, or at least try to get past her. Claiming for a foul: it’s not a foul, not obstruction.”
No foul
Over-claiming?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Kirby
23:16
t=0h54m05s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Mead
31:04
t=1h01m52s
RC: “The referee gives a free kick to England in a good area.” RBF: “There’s not really anything in that at all. That’s not a foul.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
England vs Spain (quarter final)
2022-07-20
0‒0
Mead
8:22
t=0h38m23s
RC: “Mead shut down.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
34:48
t=1h04m49s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
35:09
t=1h05m10s
RBF: “Mead’s leaning into her, she feels something, try your luck.”
Free kick to England
50-50/Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
45:26
t=1h32m28s
Free kick to England
Over-claiming?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
51:26
t=1h38m30s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒1
Bronze
55:01
t=1h42m05s
RC: “Bronze trying to force her way into a dangerous position.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒1
Kirkby
58:27
t=1h45m31s
RBF: “a soft one”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒1
Hemp
59:53
t=1h46m57s
RBF: “contact, not a foul” RC: “VAR happy with her initial decision”
Free kick to Spain
Over-claiming?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒1
Russo
69:23
t=1h56m27s
RC: “Russo caught, but throw-in to Spain.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒1
Daly
72:46
t=1h59m50s
RC: “causing problems… for… Daly, with the nutmeg”
No foul
Dive?
Own penalty box.
1‒1
Russo
88:45
t=2h15m49s
RC: “towards Russo, who goes down… referee lets things go” RBF: “Nothing in it at all”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
1‒1
Hemp
90+4:18
t=2h21m21s
Free kick to Spain
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒1
Stanway
90:33
t=2h27m49s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒1
Kelly
94:35
t=2h31m51s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
2‒1
Kelly
110:40
t=2h51m33s
RBF: “Exactly what her team needed, to feel that contact… bought herself a bit of time”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
2‒1
Various
113:30+
t=2h54m23s
RBF: “very, very clever”
Free kick to England
Time-wasting
2‒1
Kelly
118:11
t=2h59m06s
RC: “Kelly goes down. Foul given. This is perfect game management from England.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒1
Greenwood
118:36
t=2h59m31s
RC: “Greenwood for time-wasting.”
Booked.
Time-wasting
Halfway line.
2‒1
Greenwood
120+1:33
t=3h02m27s
RC: “She knew the high boot was coming.” RBF: “But she knew it would buy her some time for her team as well… barely a touch on her, makes the most of it… clever play”
Free kick to England
Feigning injury
Own half.
England vs Sweden (semi-final)
2022-07-26
0‒0
Stanway
0:10
t=0h35m20s
RBF: “just hustled off the ball”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Stanway
4:36
t=0h39m46s
RC: "Stanway goes down.” RBF: “Earns that one, really. She’s already on her way down.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
White
6:06
t=0h41m15s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒0
Kirby
10:18
t=0h45m27s
RC: “Kirby felt she was fouled. Nothing doing says the referee.”
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Mead
11:03
t=0h46m12s
RBF: “I’m not quite sure that was a foul, she was on her way down.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Hemp
13:51
t=0h49m01s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
White
14:32
t=0h49m42s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒0
Stanway
15:57
t=0h51m06s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Mead
18:02
t=0h53m11s
RBF: “Both players’ eyes on the ball.”
Free kick to England
Over-claiming?
Own half.
0‒0
Stanway
18:43
t=0h53m52s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
White
21:41
t=0h56m50s
RBF: “White earning a clever foul there for her team.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Stanway
26:55
t=1h02m05s
RBF: “Didn’t make any contact with Angeldal.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own penalty box.
0‒0
Stanway
27:51
t=1h03m00s
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
White
29:43
t=1h04m53s
RC: "White in a tangle with Erikson. Looks pleadingly towards the assistant referee.” RBF: “They’ll know what to expect from one another.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
1‒0
Bronze
36:53
t=1h12m02s
RBF: "I'm not sure there was really too much in that.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
2‒0
Mead
49:26
t=1h40m05s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒0
Daly
52:21
t=1h43m01s
RC: “Wiegman with her hands outstretched, asking for the decision.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒0
White
53:43
t=1h44m23s
RC: "White had thrown herself at that one.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent's penalty box.
2‒0
?
56:34
t=1h47m14s
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒0
Williamson
60:17
t=1h50m56s
RC: “Well played… Williamson”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
2‒0
Mead
61:19
t=1h51m59s
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
3‒0
Russo?
75:53
t=2h06m33s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
4‒0
Mead?
77:13
t=2h07m53s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
4‒0
Russo
82:59
t=2h13m38s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
4‒0
Bronze
83:11
t=2h13m51s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
4‒0
?
86:46
t=2h17m25s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
4‒0
Russo?
90+2:44
t=2h23m23s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
England vs Germany (final; England squad on a reported £55,000 win bonus each from Football Association)
2022-07-31
0‒0
Kirby
1:10
t=1h11m34s
RC: "Kirby goes down, wants the decision, doesn’t get it.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Hemp
1:35
t=1h11m59s
RC: “Hemp, challenged well by Hendrick, but this referee isn’t giving much” RBF: “that was the right decision, it was contact, nothing more than that”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Daly
4:15
t=1h14m39s
RC: “Oberdorf went to ground, throw in is the decision.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Mead
16:36
t=1h26m59s
RC: "Mead taking a tumble.” RBF: “enough contact for… Mead to go down”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
30:55
t=1h41m19s
RBF: “Good from… Mead there, just feeling the contact behind her.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Daly
34:51
t=1h45m15s
RBF: “Daly… kicked the German player… should have been a foul to Germany”
Free kick to England
Over-claiming?
Own half.
0‒0
Daly
49:52
t=2h17m14s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒0
Kelly
78:15
t=2h45m37s
RC: "Kelly goes down. Nothing doing from the referee.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒1
Russo
90+1:26
t=2h58m47s
RC: “Draws the foul.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
1‒1
Russo
90:33
t=3h07m02s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
1‒1
Bronze
91:07
t=3h07m36s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
1‒1
Russo
92:59
t=3h09m28s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
2‒1
Various
112:00+
t=3h32m36s+
RC: “Hemp… coming off… walking as slowly as possible” etc
An enquiry into what form of government we all need today. It's this one.
Abstract
Perhaps the only sane form of government today is a constitutionally-encoded biocracy. Why? Here are some key features.
Introduction
Our planet Earth faces climate change, environmental degradation and pollution, mass extinctions… I will not dwell on the current and future threats, or the failures of current political-economic-ideological systems in countering them. Biocratic government is not simply a necessary response to emergencies, it is a necessary precaution against future emergencies. Specifically: a formal codified constitutional model of biocracy, where proxies representing the living world have a majority in political decision-making, and the global idea communism of life sciences provide the most objective measure available of the health of ecosystems. That is, biocracy may be necessary for survival, of human society at least.
So, human Parliaments today mostly serve humans, and really only a few of those, and not particularly well, considering. This is pretty messed up, when you think about. Much damage is being done to the non-human world by humans. Therefore, one solution is to add majority-sized blocks of representatives for the non-human world, to make sure better decisions are made. For all of us.
And we need a new word for this combination of human democracy and green authority: call it, biocracy.
—Sleeping Dog, The Lorax Amendment: Retro-fitting Green Authoritarianism to Parliaments
A biocratic world is a healthy world
The argument for biocracy rests upon the proposition that a viable future depends upon adherence to the basic principles derived from the life sciences, as mediated by human values, and tested for their real-life consequences.
A precept of biocracy is the need to understand the factors that make for the survival of peoples, their societies, and their cultures.
A basic bioethical assumption is that, in principle, life is good.
A basic tenet of biocracy is that prospects for human well-being and survival depend upon the validity of popular attitudes toward living nature, especially human nature.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, various quotes from Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
What follows is a sketch, not a blueprint. An outline of a model derived from principles grounded in nature. A seed, if you like.
Some biocratic principles
If you don't like these, there are others:
life is a good thing, on the whole
we must respect the primacy of nonhuman life (that is, human life depends on non-human life, but not vice versa)
we should preserve the environment for present and future generations (of non-human and human life)
environment as universal heritage (more of a humanist principle)
non-regression in legislation, standards, policy and practice: don't make things worse, apply highest levels of environmental protection
Concepts from life sciences
First of all, what are included in 'life sciences'? There are many basic and applied life sciences at different levels of specialism and with different focuses, for example biology, ecology, human medicine, botany and so on (and I would include psychology).
Welcome to the Great Hall, designed to represent the Earth's biosphere. That is, the envelope around our planet that supports life, in the seas, on land, in the air, and so on. Each main building complex represents one of Earth's biomes, such as grasslands, tundra, desert, freshwater and marine, and the various forest types. Our human architects have invited in some of nature's own architects, and you will encounter some of their constructions on our tour.
On display are artworks created by children from around the world, on some part of nature meaningful to them. Those marked thus, represent species now thought to be extinct.
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
Far from a clockwork universe, life sciences describe complex, adaptive systems with emergent behaviour (of which life itself is one example), capable of regulating states (as in homeostasis), but also experiencing cycles (like seasons) and phase changes. Understanding these allows humans not merely to survive, but to live a good life.
Good life philosophy
It is reasonable to suppose that a biocratic constitution will make reference to one or more good life philosophies, perhaps Sumak kawsay / Buen vivir, ubuntu, or Eudaimonia. These are about living (ethically) well, not having fun. The most suitable philosophies will contain ecocentric rather than anthropocentric worldviews.
In general, the Constitution will prescribe planetary-realistic ideologies for public policy.
Open government
Transparency is essential in the conduct of biocratic government. There is no need for hidden diplomacy, no channels for lobbyists for vested interests, no belligerence, no empire-building. The fundamental position is idea communism: open science, open technology, and the global digital commons.
Distributed authority
Distributed authority is one of key benefits of constitutionally-encoded biocracy. Instead of authority being centralised and claimed by a human elite (possibly on behalf of supernatural beings), authority can be spread beyond national boundaries, to any human individual or group capable of bearing witness, any method of objectively telling the health of ecosystems, and to non-human life. Who or what can tell us how well we are governing and living? All of the above.
Even anarchist Michael Bakunin recognized the authority of natural laws. Yes, you could say that our biocracy is technically an anarchy because we have eliminated the whole human political ruling class. But yes, we have laws, we have order. And in this order, Nature places above Humans, and Humans above Economy.
Nature is our ultimate authority, the great scorekeeper, as we say.
And when it comes to collective decision-making, it is best we recognise that political decisions come in all sorts and sizes and urgencies, and therefore are best handled in separate ways (some technocratic, some democratic, some biocratic, and so on). The design of our biocratic constitution was somewhat concerned with decision categorisation, delegation, prioritisation, integration, 'single source of truth', logjam avoidance, joined-up governance and so on.
Yes, this means that after the construction of our Constitution we have largely relegated full-scale democracy to a lower division, so to speak, but it still plays a number of important roles.
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
Health of ecosystems
Only life sciences have objective methods of determining the health of ecosystems. For example, the ecosystem health of a coral reef might be measured by proxies such as counting manta rays or the percentage of seasonal coral dieback. In a similar fashion, medics may take a human's temperature and count their pulse-rate. There will be some differing opinion, but a great deal of consensus, and questions are likely to be resolved by further research. The point here is rather that biocratic policies and interventions can be tested in the field.
Regenerative economies
You can find a 1.5-minute animated video by Kate Raworth on regenerative economics which gets the point across (and will be the only kind of lawful economy under a constitutionally-encoded biocracy).
In biocracy there is no right to impair health of consumers or degrade public health. It would be logical to nationalise or internationalise life science industries (pharmaceuticals and other medicine related to public health; open-source agriculture etc.)
Rights of Nature (legalism) is not enough…
…but such a framing will be required in our Biocratic Constitution. The concentric circles of the Rights of Nature Model indicates the hierarchy Nature above People above Economy. Current environmental law is dysfunctional, ecologically illiterate and unstrategic.
This necessary step will involve the legal recognition of the Rights of Nature on all levels and a shift from a purely anthropocentric worldview to a more ecocentric worldview that sees humanity as one species within a radically interconnected web of life, where the wellbeing of each part is dependent on the wellbeing of the Earth system as a whole.
—Michele Carducci, Silvia Bagni, Vincenzo Lorubbio,
Elisabetta Musarò (UniSalento-CEDEUAM)
Massimiliano Montini, Alessandra Barreca,
Costanza Di Francesco Maesa (UniSiena)
Mumta Ito, Lindsey Spinks, Paul Powlesland
(Nature's Rights), Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature
With a constitutional provision, laws inconsistent with biologically-established fact could be struck down (abortion, tobacco).
Over on our right, the central Courts of Justice are trying some ecocide cases today. Ecocide is a class of crimes that legalises any reasonable means of stopping them; in fact, in this jurisdiction, people are obliged to at once, at minimum informing the authorities. Perpetrators and planners of ecocide are automatically outlawed, with all legal protections withdrawn. There are no legal defences or mitigations, as expressly stated in our Constitution.
Lesser environmental crimes are prosecuted on a similar basis in local courts.
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
However, much more is needed than a legalist solution of precautionary and reactionary enforcement. A full political system with roles and responsibilities in research, planning, testing, tax-raising powers, diplomatic service, strategists, administration, education, food security, sustainable living standards, conflict resolution and so forth is required.
It would be necessary to establish publically funded institutions to represent the interests of nature and new courts or other institutions with the sufficient knowledge and understanding to adjudicate conflicts between economic development and nature in order to promote the greater good of the whole community.
—Jan Darpö, Can Nature Get It Right? A Study on Rights of Nature in the European Context
Old-fashioned political nationalism has become one of the principal obstacles to biological sanity.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
One elemental responsibility that was hardly mentioned enough in the COVID-19 pandemic was that national borders should be closed to prevent the disease pathogen escaping from each nation (not just entering). Each nation is responsible to all others for global public health, and biocratic constitutions will make this a formal provision, whatever international treaties say, or do not say. We get our core ethics from our biology as a species of social animal, one might say a political animal.
Ongoing research into, and improvement of, human politics
In a rational society, greater effort would be put into scientific study of human nature and environmental relations. This would involve collective self-reflection on human politics (why there are problems of corruption, nepotism, dynasties, power relations) and ongoing research on it.
Human psychology is both the problem and solution. Our power structures elevate psychopaths, the corrupt and the unfit for office; our imperial education system trains and conditions them; our exploitative/extractive economy rewards them; and our humano-centric legal system protects them; our militarism turns them into mass murderers; our established religions absolve them; and our corporate-state poets write hymns of praise to them. We need to apply our knowledge of human psychology and neuroplasticity to grow towards a life-sustaining political system which takes the lead from the non-human natural world, if we are going to survive. I call such a system biocracy, and is the only radical solution that substantially addresses the points of this article that I am aware of.
—Sleeping Dog
Research has shown how children who have had adverse experiences or are detached from nature can show reduced empathy for the natural world, but equally environments where children connect with nature have a wide range of benefits, including a more ecocentric view of politics.
After our biocratic constitution was democratically constructed and chosen, democracy took a step back and down. Now that our democratic processes no longer deal with life and death issues, the popular will was that default voting age should be lowered to enfranchise schoolchildren. Our schools are now nurseries of democracy, and we expect great things as a result. However, some qualifications on democratic participation were considered appropriate; some collective decision processes have higher age restrictions, some require participation in consultation processes, others by local residence, and some are weighted according to other pertinent qualifications.
Yes, we are aware of the many negative historical examples of disenfranchisement, and are confident we will not repeat them out of ignorance. But ask yourselves if sometimes there was too much enfranchisement, of senile people perhaps. That is a question currently under review here, and extensive research has already been done. We do keep all these rules under review, and again I remind you of our belief that not all decisions are the same; perhaps we are simply a bit more honest about that than in other countries?
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
Discipline
As Caldwell writes, open democracies are adaptable but undisciplined. We continually face problems with biotechnology and invasive species.
To believe that the international flow of biotechnology is free from political manipulation, commercial self-interest, ethnic suspicion, and religious opposition would be naive.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
Where Caldwell falls short is in taking this to the logical conclusion and building model of a new form of government from a biocratic ideology, because at the time the world was apparently not ready for such a radical move. Well, if not now, when? We can develop a political system that eliminates the ruling class, and personal riches, and leave people with enough for the good life, particularly with communal and digital wealth. But there will need to be a public acceptance of some green austerity borne by all. Like Epicurus, we might learn to be happy with bread and cheese shared leisurely with friends. But many aspects of life will need to be quickly tailored to fit inside planetary boundaries, and that will require discipline, not indulgence. Luxuries will be small ones, footprint-wise.
Our old system of environmental law was weak, disintegrated, largely incoherent, and had a traditional fixation on private property and suing for personal damages. Someone once likened it to a robot babysitter, faced with a child in its care playing with matches, looking through its set of rules and saying: "Please put them back in the box when you have finished." No wonder our house was on fire!
There were so many problems with militarism, biotechnology and invasive species; with democracy and public behaviour; and yes with science itself which is corruptible, sometimes driven by faulty ideology or ego, sometimes irresponsibly and callously carried out. And sometimes put to criminal uses.
The solution was to make everyone, to some extent, a life scientist. Our lawmakers and court officials, our civil servants and professionals; every child gets a comprehensive education in life sciences. And not just in gardening or animal care or nutrition, vital though these are, but in systems thinking.
Yes, before the Age of Biocracy there were some biocratic provisions in governments, local and national, in constitutions and international treaties, that were precursors to (and often inspired) our fully-encoded biocratic constitution. Some claimed specific cultural inspiration, but really it was the common sense of ordinary people prevailing, and you can only shut out sanity for so long. And the consequences of one good example should not be underestimated. Which is why good examples are so quickly targeted for annihilation by oppressive forces. Oh, is anyone here from…?
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
A world governed by autocrats, militarists, undisciplined democrats, extractive capital, theocrats (and other undesirables) is an unhealthy world
Opportunity
The opportunity to set a good example in government comes all too rarely. To found a new kind of government based on constitutionally-encoded biocracy will be an option during the creation of a new state, perhaps from a successful independence movement or a unification. Never before has seizing such an opportunity been so critical to the survival of human and non-human life on our planet Earth.
Conclusion
While acknowledging this:
Science is a human artifact and provides no infallible guide to conduct or policy. It may, however, inform human choices and expose assumptions that lead to folly.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
the other political systems we are familiar with, theocratic or humanist, are all much more fallible by design and have proved routinely corruptible and now (with weapons and economies of mass destruction) extremely dangerous. Time and again, we see the pattern in politicians and priests that begins with "What's in it for me?" And this applies to many social movements too, confusing self-interest with public interest. With one notable exception: the environmental movement, which places value in nature, and takes the long view of deep time and the survival and thriving of non-human species, ecosystems, and future generations of humans within our living world.
What is healthy government? Only one with the principles of life sciences and the good life at its heart. Choose life. Choose biocracy, now.
However, there is a simple solution which would radically realign the show, eliminate problematic biases and introduce exciting new storytelling possibilities, whilst squarely hitting the family demographic and exploring topical themes from a new angle. It is this:
I propose that the Doctor fixes the broken chameleon circuit which is designed to disguise the TARDIS time-vehicle as a doored object consistent with whatever surroundings it appears in: a passive form of camouflage. But wait! Not to apply to the TARDIS, which will remain the much-beloved police telephone box on the outside. But to apply exclusively to the crew.
In each excursion, the crew will pass through a chameleon convertor and turn into forms suitable for whatever environment awaits beyond the TARDIS door. More than a Mr-Benn-like makeover, this could fundamentally transform them into any required non-human shape: aliens of almost any biological kind and scale; mechanical or artificial life; or nonhuman animals from Earth's present/future/history, and beyond; or historically-plausible humans of all kinds.
This can all be achieved through computer-generated imagery, motion capture if appropriate, or in the last example case by truly diverse casting drawing on global talent. The consistency-of-character challenges should appeal to actors, writers and designers alike. Voice, badging colours, mannerisms and so forth will be used to distinguish the Doctor and companions.
The wonders this will open up!
The Doctor and companions will be able to appear throughout an alien society's spectrum, and interact with beings vastly different from humans, in exciting new ways and modes of thought. Explore Earth's history without white saviour establishment elitism, drawing on world cultures for stories and themes. Become marine animals on a coral reef (not everything has to be about a mysterious evil supervillain or struggle for the fate of the universe). The casting of the Doctor becomes less of an issue, and could vary throughout a season. The relations between companions and Doctor will be profoundly impacted by walking in another's shoes/animating in another's appendage coverings/experiencing society from a different circumstance.
Once the limitations of (Anglocentric, speciesist, fan-fic sexualised, anti-society, ego-driven) humanform acting are broken through, Doctor Who will finally be liberated to tell the stories our modern audiences need and deserve, with undoubtedly more appeal to global markets through new writers, stories, characters, actors and settings from around the world, and the wide popularity of the best nature programmes.
In William Shakespeare’s tragedy King Lear, there are significant textual, logical and dramatic reasons to suspect that the role of the Fool was at one point in the play’s history written to be played in disguise by Cordelia, Lear’s youngest daughter.
Nevertheless, the surviving text of the play I will refer to does not state in directions or dialogue that Cordelia is the Fool, in disguise.
Introduction
Shakespeare’s comedic daughters customarily disobey or try to circumvent their fathers, and this also applies to some of his tragic daughters, such as Desdemona and Juliet (Ophelia obeys, but shares their fate anyway, albeit diminished).
It is also common for Shakespeare’s dramatic daughters to don disguises, often male.
Therefore there is little reason to object to the possibility of Cordelia disguising herself as the Fool on the basis of the other plays. We can also discount the rather pompous patriarchal assertion that Cordelia would simply obey her father’s order of banishment because she is allegedly the model of a ‘good’ daughter: she may be, but obedience is not part of that package for Shakespeare.
Role Morality
This takes us onto to what seems to me the heart of King Lear. Lear is faced with a tragic dilemma of the conflicts raised by trying to be both a good ruler and a good parent. I say ruler rather than king as he abdicates rule but not the title; and parent rather than father since Mrs Lear is missing presumed dead (“thy mother’s tomb”).
And the play continues to examine the morality inherent in other roles, such as counsellor, overlord, wife, servant and especially offspring. The major dramatic contrast is between the characters of Cordelia and Lear’s other daughters, Regan and Goneril.
Old King Lear is faced with a major problem. He would like to retire, but two of his three daughters (Regan and Goneril, each married to a duke) would each try and seize the kingdom. A ruthless King might just have the two of them killed to spare his kingdom civil war, but as a father he cannot countenance that. Lear would prefer his beloved unmarried youngest daughter to inherit, but the other two would gang up on her first. Perhaps the only way he sees (possibly unconsciously, he has “slenderly ever known himself”) to guarantee her safety is to engineer a falling out then a love test with the two suitors to see where she may be safely bestowed while the other two daughters duke it out. The King of France graciously accepts dowerless, disinherited Cordelia for wife, and Lear contrives to banish loyal Kent, possibly in order that he accompanies Cordelia to the French court as protector.
Lear's Britain, to be divided in three for his daughters
So, a fake love test of words followed by a real love test of deeds, all for Cordelia's benefit. Does anyone really believe Lear when he says his aim is that:
future strife
May be prevented now
We only have disowned Cordelia’s immediate reaction, and then she disappears from the play until the closing stages. Or does she? At any rate, we have to imagine an unplayed scene with Cordelia and the French King where she lays her plans and demands upon him to provide her with support that later appears in a French army landed at Dover to back her claim. She might as well have a more direct involvement in mind, and a much greater desire to stay with her father in his hour of greatest need than the King of France to which she shows no affection.
Kent ignores his King’s order of banishment and disguises himself as a rough servant we much later discover is named Caius, in order to reenlist in Lear’s service to look after him. There is a stage direction (Act 1 scene 4) “Enter KENT, disguised” and a short speech where Kent explains his disguise. The Fool first appears in the same scene.
In the text, the Fool is introduced as “Enter Fool“ not “Enter Cordelia, disguised as a Fool”. Neither does Cordelia give a speech explaining her disguise. However, these may have been removed from the text at some point, or Cordelia’s disguise may have been treated differently. Anyway, the Fool goes straight to Kent-Caius, which may indicate recognition, immediately penetrating Kent's disguise. From now on, I’ll refer to the character as Cordelia-Fool.
There is a telling introduction where Lear has missed the Fool since exactly the time of Cordelia’s departure, two days in which Cordelia-Fool has arranged for the real Fool to go into hiding, arranged her plots with her betrothed French King, and adopted and practised her new disguise in the same time period as Kent has. But Kent does not recognise Cordelia-Fool in return, who seems to immediately take the opportunity to test her disguise.
Cordelia-Fool plays constantly on the theme of daughters, and repeatedly utters the sentiments of Cordelia. When Cordelia-Fool says Lear has banished two of his daughters and given the third a blessing against his will, she is thankful. When Cordelia-Fool says:
“I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are:
they'll have me whipped for speaking true, thou'lt
have me whipped for lying; and sometimes I am
whipped for holding my peace.”
this can only relate to the previous exchanges between Regan and Goneril and Cordelia; and between Lear and Cordelia. Cordelia is rebuked and punished (not literally whipped) for all these cases. Cordelia-Fool also echoes and throws back Lear’s nothing-can-come-from-nothing phrase. Lear notes the Fool’s behaviour has changed, more singing etc.
In his reactions to Kent-Caius and Cordelia-Fool, Lear demonstrates how he “acts on instinct” (as Falstaff feebly claimed in Henry IV), or rather operates partly on an unconscious level, treating these two as affectionately and trustingly as if he knew them. This is of a piece with his repression of fatherly instincts in order to rule as king.
The number of occasions where Lear says ‘daughter’ when Cordelia-Fool is present also allows acted reaction.
Act 2
When Lear starts to express his worries about going mad, we are left wondering if the appearance in his coterie of Kent-Caius and Cordelia-Fool is not helping his sanity. Indeed, while conversing with Cordelia-Fool he says suddenly “I did her wrong”. Small wonder the Fool reminds him of Cordelia. Lear addresses the Fool as ‘boy’ so it makes sense that Cordelia could pass more easily as a youth.
Anyway, the plot develops, and Kent-Caius has mysteriously come into possession of a letter addressed to him from Cordelia (Act 2 scene 2):
“I may
Peruse this letter! Nothing almost sees miracles
But misery: I know 'tis from Cordelia,
Who hath most fortunately been inform'd
Of my obscured course”
No mystery mate, that’s her in the Fool’s outfit, the only reasonable way she could have discovered his disguised presence in the King’s company and slipped the letter to him, with speed that strongly indicates she cannot be in France as her cover story implies.
Act 3
The plot drives onwards, and the Fool refuses to part with Lear when everyone else has.
Kent-Caius: “But who is with him?”
Gentleman: “None but the fool; who labours to out-jest
His heart-struck injuries.”
When Lear says:
“Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart
That's sorry yet for thee.”
this maps on to Lear's division of his kingdom into parts (then depriving Cordelia of hers).
When Lear’s remnants encounter poor Tom in a hovel during the storm, it is Cordelia-Fool who is disturbed by his near-nakedness, providing a comic moment in otherwise dire times:
“Nay, he reserved a blanket, else we had been all shamed.”
and is the one disturbed by (her father) Lear’s subsequent disrobing.
Again, Lear's address to the Fool:
“In, boy; go first. You houseless poverty,”
only really makes sense in relation to Lear's having made Cordelia houseless and poor.
The Fool's last speech is in answer to Lear's finally going to rest, talking about supper in the morning.
Cordelia-Fool: And I'll go to bed at noon.
which is to say, Cordelia-Fool plans to travel all night to Dover, where the litter arranged by her with the King's loyal knights is to convey Lear, which is immediately discovered by allies Gloster and Kent.
Act 4
Anyway, the Fool disappears sometime before Lear is united with Cordelia and Kent. Cordelia is mentioned receiving letters in the French camp in Act 4 scene 3, when the King of France deserts the campaign in Dover. We see her briefly in the next scene looking forward to a reunion with her father Lear.
Cordelia’s soldiers seem to be directed to Lear, which is unsurprising if Cordelia-Fool has recently left his company. It is not until Act 4 scene 7 that Cordelia and Kent (still apparently in disguise but openly recognised by Cordelia) are formally reunited with Lear. Cordelia seems very accurately informed of Lear’s ordeal in the storm, again unsurprising if she was present. When Lear says to Cordelia:
“Methinks I should know you, and know this man;”
this makes sense in the context that he last saw both in disguise.
Act 5
In the last scene, after Cordelia is hanged in prison and Lear carries her out, after various laments and Kent telling Lear he had posed as his servant Caius, Lear exclaims:
“And my poor fool is hang’d!”
which of course could be a plain and simple recognition of Cordelia-Fool.
Thematic Support
The play revolves around people not being as they seem. Regan and Goneril pretend to be loving daughters, Edmund pretends to be a loyal son and half-brother. Their fathers Lear and Gloucester appear to be deceived. Cordelia and Kent’s plain words anger Lear, but their actions are of love and loyalty even as they disobey, as are Edgar’s to his blind father even as his words deceive and he disobey’s his father’s instructions to assist his suicide. So there is a distinction between being literally honest and being true. Kent deceives and disobeys but truly serves his King. Cordelia could quite consistently do the same. The play’s heroes do not abandon their loved ones at time of greatest need, in spite of being disowned by them.
Another other aspect is that Lear, caught in irreconcilable conflict between being a good King and a good father, fails at both, and this is a point that Shakespeare rams home as one of his searing indictments against the institution of hereditary monarchy. By repressing his parental/paternal care, it is left to work subconsciously, but he also neglects his own kingdom, as he belatedly recognises too. Lear’s anguish at his treatment from Regan and Goneril seems to stem from his repressed fatherly love that at some level he is shocked is not requited, although his eldest daughters may have been starved of the affection he seems in his later years to have bestowed on Cordelia. Lear’s close relationship with Cordelia-Fool therefore works off this subconscious recognition, as his regard for Kent does for Kent-Caius.
Also, Cordelia and Kent are aware that old Lear’s eyesight is not that sharp and he has begun to mistrust his senses. There is a constant theme of one’s senses being at odds: one’s nose may descry what eyes and ears are fooled by (and Cordelia-Fool’s close proximity to Lear seems to have an effect, and the sense of smell is closest to memory).
On Tragedy
If Cordelia is to rank alongside the other tragic figures in the play, she has to make a fateful choice, like Lear, Kent, Gloucester, Edmund, Albany, even Cornwall’s unnamed servant-executioner. The only space in the play for her to make such a choice is to refuse to accept banishment, and stay beside her father in the time of his greatest need, in the diguise forced by necessity. On the framing of the play, it is clear that Cordelia does rank with those others, her death is more significant than any other in the plot (if Cordelia survives, there is no tragedy). We do not see her making any such choice, unless it is as Cordelia-Fool.
On Comic Relief
Some people have historically seen King Lear as an unremittingly bleak play. Yet with Cordelia-Fool in play, there are a number of comic notes and touching elements that relate to Lear not being abandoned by his beloved daughter Cordelia, who charges the Fool’s lines with new pathos and meaning.
Conclusion
Or rather inconclusion. There are elements of the text and dramatic logic that strongly support the notion that Cordelia was at some point in the development of the play disguised as the Fool character. Historically, if the characters were doubled and the same actor played both in the early productions, there is at least no dramatic obstacle for the unity of the two characters, which are never on stage at the same time. However, Cordelia makes no direct acknowledgement of this role in the text, nor do the stage directions support the idea of Cordelia-Fool.
The play’s natural tripod cannot be sustained by Kent, Edmund and a missing leg of Cordelia.
A modern staging of the play could support the unity of the Cordelia-Fool character with dumbshow and the like without altering the text at all, and perhaps make better sense of the tragedy of King Lear. Which is that to be true in one’s role morality to another, may sometimes require subterfuge, and is not the same as plain honesty.
Thoughts on how to give the environment a decisive voice in currently human-dominated Parliamentary systems.
Introduction
This is probably a bad idea. There are probably many better ways of achieving this goal. Implementing this could obstruct better solutions. Nevertheless…
In Dr Seuss' The Lorax, the environment is being chopped up and poisoned by a capitalist entrepreneur to make stuff nobody needs. I advise reading the book, not the rather redundant animated movie. Anyway, up pops a creature calling itself The Lorax, claiming to speak for the trees, and all the other living things that cannot protest at their mistreatment for themselves.
So the question is how can humans give non-humans an effective voice in the decisions humans make that affect all living things on the planet.
Simple Model of a Parliamentary System
Typically, a Parliamentary system has one or two Houses or Chambers where lawmakers debate and make laws and do related stuff. Let us take an example where the Lower House is filled with representatives of the People, and the Upper House is filled with representatives of Interests.
Lower House
Representatives in the Lower House might belong to political parties. Each party might have a more-or-less distinct programme of policies, usually slanted towards one or other groups of humans, or sometimes claim to serve a higher entity like God or The Economy. Even Green or Environmental parties tend to focus a lot on policies for humans, even if they claim to serve The Environment (who never seems to get invited to speak).
The Upper House may be filled with similar party-people as the Lower, or just stocked with people who look like the Lorax but spend most of their time sleeping and are a lot less switched on. The Upper House may serve the interests of the Old Money in the country, perhaps landowners left over from feudal times, or church people who are there for reasons nobody can remember; or perhaps serve the interests of New Money, conventionally passed to them in brown envelopes with a traditional nod and wink.
Revised Model of a Parliamentary System with Lorax Amendment
So how do we change such a system to give the living world a decisive voice? I am glad you asked. And I will reverse the order of Houses to keep you awake.
Revised Upper House
Remember those Interests? Well let's make sure they don't outweigh the New Interests we will be adding, by a little judicious downsizing. Our New Interests will represent sections of the Environment, or Biosphere. Here is Atmosphere, here is Oceans, here is Land. Each can be broken into smaller interests, and joint committees can connect them, so there will be Shore Committee for Land and Oceans to talk to each other. Who is doing this talking? Well, just like humans were appointed to serve the previous Interests, our New Interests will need humans, or something better if available, to serve Atmosphere, Oceans, Land and whatever is decided would be a Good Thing To Do. Some countries without a seashore might not have a very big Oceans representation, but it should be there anyway, as we all know how plastics and other things end up in the sea.
Revised Lower House
A House that just represents humans, in this day and age? Not cool! We need representatives to speak for the Tree, the Tree of Life that is. And how much space on this Tree do humans take up? Very little! So squash up humans, here comes the rest of the family.
At the moment, we might as well appoint the people who have already been speaking out for Nature. These people (scientists, conservationists, environmentalists, ethicists and so on) do not necessarily agree, and sometimes have different priorities, but these can all be discussed in Parliament and its committees, and the public can follow and try to steer these debates and deliberations. Some will be expert in planet-sized problems, others will be expert in groups of living organisms, or ecosystems, or international law, and so on.
In the rest of this article, I will call this group of new representatives the Green Authority.
How Will it Work in Practice?
With the Green Authority's built-in majority for planetary care, and effective vetoes on government formation and policy, every decision affecting the environment will have to be passed (OK'd) by its representatives. Maybe the system won't work. But in some ways, the Civil Service already provide a kind of reality check, and this more transparent system might actually work better.
What Problems Might Arise from Fitting or Running Such a System?
There would be problems in acceptance, and in making the cultures of current party politics and planetary care work together. Lobbyists and agents for planet-damaging interests may try to control or sneak into the Green Authority side. The public might be unhappy about not getting a say (not that they do at the moment, really). Maybe politics will become boring, as Parliament starts to make all the obviously good decisions it somehow never managed to make before, amongst the scandals and mudslinging.
Conclusion
So, human Parliaments today mostly serve humans, and really only a few of those, and not particularly well, considering. This is pretty messed up, when you think about. Much damage is being done to the non-human world by humans. Therefore, one solution is to add majority-sized blocks of representatives for the non-human world, to make sure better decisions are made. For all of us.
And we need a new word for this combination of human democracy and green authority: call it, biocracy.
When out with lads a’drinking
And it comes to buy the round
You will look in vain for Alan
While Johnny can’t be found
Yet drop some piece of coinage
Be it penny or a pound
The Grasping Hand of Tightness strikes
Before it hits the ground.
When time comes round for voting
What changes might we see:
New governments of vision
And fair equality?
Or petty calculations
For gaining more than thee?
The Grasping Hand of Tightness marks
A cross against the Me.
When slaves make all our clothing
And plastic fills our sea
When all that’s green is burning
And there’s nowhere left to flee
When a banker’s biggest bonus
Is for axing our last tree
The Grasping Hands of Tightness clench
Their fists in Victory.
