By Colin Tudge
Though many people in high places are in denial, no sensible – “ordinary” – person needs telling that the world is in deep trouble: deeper than ever before. There is disaster on every front: political, economic, social, ecological, climatic – and although many good things are happening the economic ideas and policies that prevail and the technologies that are being developed most zealously are digging the hole ever deeper.
Worse: the world’s most powerful and influential people are crude thinkers at best – fixated on self-gratification and personal wealth (which of course is how most of them got to be rich in the first place). Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Bezos are among the most conspicuous.
Worse still: the most powerful human being of all, the orange man-child in the White House, is by any reasonable standards (the standards of most “ordinary” people), mad.
Even worse (if such is possible): despite Trump’s obvious madness he has a powerful following. They include people who for their own purposes exploit his limited intellect and his overweening vanity (“malignant narcissism” is one expert if informal diagnosis). So it is that business people and mountebanks persuade him, as if he needed persuading, that it is somehow noble to compete, as ruthlessly as necessary, for material wealth and power; that this is “natural”, and indeed is life’s purpose.
Worst of all, he is prey to cynical people who are cleverer than he is (the bar is set low) and have persuaded him by flattery and glitz to deploy the terrifying military power of the US in their own interests. Thus by any standards Trump’s attack on Iran is both mad and wicked, and on a point of considerable detail it is doing the US, which he vowed to protect, immeasurable harm. Yet there are beneficiaries: Netanyahu, who among much else lured him on and reeled him in with absurd and fantastical talk of a Nobel Peace Prize; and of course Vladimir Putin, who must benefit enormously from the destruction of Middle Eastern oilfields, and the diversion of attention away from Ukraine. Trump is using the might of the US military to do their dirty work for them.
And yet – and this perhaps is the greatest and scariest absurdity of all – Trump has a huge if apparently dwindling personal following. Many people evidently feel that he is a great man – even perhaps the new Messiah. Behind these out-and-out zealots are the malignant hordes of the Far Right – people who believe that for reasons of birth or colour or wealth or whatever, some people are superior to others, and that those who are superior have a rightor even a duty to oppress or indeed to annihilate whoever they deem to be below them in life’s pecking order. Far Right thinking is in truth a malignant meme; a viral pathogen deadlier than covid, for it has the potential to destroy the whole world.
Trump’s principal henchmen, Pete Hegseth and J D Vance, are of this persuasion — yet both claim to be Christians. To those of us brought up with the idea that Jesus was and is the embodiment and exemplar of goodness and love, their claim to righteousness seems simply bizarre. And yet these men are well educated – or at least are very expensively educated. Hegseth was at Princeton for goodness’ sake and Vance would you believe is a Doctor of Jurisprudence from Yale. (But then Boris, Cameron, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Liz Truss and Peter Mandelson were all at Oxford. To the dire inventory of the world’s ills we should surely add the shortcomings of higher education).
Even so:
Trump per se is not the problem
It doesn’t help of course that the world is now run largely by psychopaths – crazily egocentric autocratic or would-be autocratic fanatics and fundamentalists of whom, right now, Trump and his acolytes, Putin, and Netanyahu, are the brand leaders. (Our own, home-grown Nigel Farage is a wannabe, an eager apprentice). We can never even begin to put the world to rights with such people in positions of such influence. They don’t begin to understand the world’s real problems, and whatever is not on their immediate radar they deem to be of no account or indeed to be non-existent (“fake news”). Absolutely not would they ever take heed of Oliver Cromwell’s plea to the Scottish clerics — but in effect to all humankind:
“Consider that you may be mistaken”
Their attitude and antics, so it’s often said, reflect their own sense of insecurity which should perhaps arouse sympathy. But it doesn’t make things any better for everyone else.
Yet the madness and gangsterism at the top are not the prime cause of the world’s ills. They are a symptom. People like Macron and Starmer are of course a huge improvement. They are at least sane. It is at least possible to hold a rational conversation with them (not that I have been invited to do so) which at least gets us to first base. Yet the conventional, western-style, supposedly democratic or would-be democratic politics that Starmer and Macron and their ilk represent won’t do either.
For conventional politicians, however clever and well-meaning they may be, in the end seem able only to apply their favoured ideology, generally in the form of some economic theory or algorithm or formula to the world’s deep and multifarious problems. These days, worldwide, the standard ideology / algorithm is neoliberalism. Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China adopted hard-line forms of Marxism. But no off-the-shelf ideology or economic theory or formula is up to the task. No ideology or ideologue properly addresses the minutiae of life – and in the end it’s the minutiae that matter: whether we can afford the rent; whether our houses are cosy or damp; whether our children’s teachers have the time and resources they need to do their job properly; whether the streets are safe; and so on. Even more to the point, no mere ideology really gets to the roots of the world’s problems — and getting to the roots is the proper meaning of the word “radical”.
Yet, of course, we cannot blame all our problems on governments. The malignant meme that has so obviously infected Trump and his ilk pervades us all. Trump’s solipsism and his extreme materialism are not treated with the disdain and distaste that is obviously warranted because, to a significant extent, it is in line with the Zeitgeist. The offshoot of capitalism known as neoliberalism has become the economic norm worldwide; and what is neoliberalism but an all-out competition for material wealth, and the status that goes with it?
In truth, if we, humanity, are ever to solve our own and the world’s problems we must dig deep, and go on digging: far beyond the conventional and off-the-shelf ideologies and into the depths of science and metaphysics and religion.
So what do we really need to do?
The next few paragraphs largely repeat what I have said many times before. But the ideas continue to evolve and there are some new twists so please bear with.
For starters we need seriously to address the two most fundamental questions facing humankind. Namely:
What is our Goal? What are we – humanity – trying to achieve and why?”
And:
What are our Principles?
Or as the Cambridge literary critic F R Leavis (1895-1978) put the matter in Two Cultures? The Significance of C P Snow (London, Chatto and Windus, 1962, p 22):
“What for — what ultimately for? What, ultimately, do we live by?”
So:
The Goal
If we really are serious – I mean seriously serious – about the future of humanity and of life on Earth then we surely do need to have some Goal in mind. But although some individual politicians do spell out what they are trying to achieve and why – as in Nye Bevan’s In Place of Fear (1952) or Vaclav Havel’s Living in Truth (1986) – no government that I know about properly explains its thinking. Governments produce manifestos, which tell us what they intend to do, but they rarely discuss the thinking or the motivation behind their wish lists. What, in short, is their vision?
For my part, I have suggested many a time and oft that our (humanity’s) Goal should be:
“To create convivial societies that encourage personal fulfilment, within a flourishing biosphere”
I have suggested many a time and oft too, that all three components – convivial societies, personal fulfilment, and a flourishing biosphere – are vital. There is no ranking order. The three are mutually supportive, like the legs of a tripod. If one is defective, the whole lot collapses.
Yet no government that I know about in the history of the world – certainly none that belongs to the modern, dominant countries of the G20 — gives proper attention to all three. Some, like Russia, China, and North Korea, emphasize the wellbeing or at least the economic and military strength of the society as a whole but they have scant regard for the fulfilment or wellbeing or even the lives of their ordinary citizens (although they tend to treat their more-or-less self-appointed leaders as gods). Some, like Margaret Thatcher’s erstwhile Tories or Farage’s Reform, encourage individuals to compete for personal, material wealth but have no conception of the general good – which leads to what the Canadian economist J K Galbraith called
“Private wealth and public squalor”
No government that I know about (and certainly none of the G20) has the proper and necessary concern for the natural world. The world’s Green parties strive to redress the balance but few among them grasp or embrace the essential concept of Oneness, as outlined below. Britain’s present Greens under Zack Polanski seem more or less entirely anthropocentric. Their present appeal lies not in their concern for our fellow creatures but in their socialism – which, when properly conceived, is indeed necessary and highly desirable (See Why don’t Starmer and Reeves try Socialism?, posted on February 19 2025). Yet concern for the wellbeing of other species and of the biosphere in general, and concern for humanity, go hand in hand. If we wreck the natural world, as we are doing, then humanity must perish too.
Much or most of what we need to keep in mind was summarized in one line by John Ruskin (1819-1900) in Unto This Last in 1860:
“All wealth is life”
That, I suggest, really is profound. It should be proclaimed in six-foot letters at all international conferences, whatever the subject matter, and in all houses of government. I like the idea too that Life is a quality of the Universe. Indeed I suggest, in metaphysical vein, that we might reasonably regard Life – spelt with a capital L — as the apotheosis and indeed as the denouement of the universe. Or, speaking teleologically, we might suggest that Life – and especially conscious Life— is the purpose of the universe. To be sure, teleology has been an anathema of western scientists for some centuries but in the hands of modern physicists it is becoming respectable again. Or so I understand. And even if it isn’t, it’s a useful idea: an heuristic, we might say.
Since we are all part of the universe and we all partake of Life, we might reasonably suggest, or at least feel, that Life is indeed our wealth. In the modern economic jargon, we are all “stakeholders” in Life. And the wealth that is conferred by Life is greater by far than the wealth measured in material goods and money. Life is indeed the sine qua non. If we don’t have life, we don’t have anything.
So it seems to me reasonable to suggest that our – humanity’s – shared Goal should be to maximize and enhance Life. So to the idea that our Goal should be to create convivial societies that foster personal fulfilment within a flourishing biosphere we should add an even grander vision: that as the most intelligent and powerful creatures we know about (and possibly the most intelligent and powerful in the whole universe) our goal – our divine duty! — should be to maximize Life.
We know, now (or so the evidence suggests) that the universe – the cosmos – will not last forever. It has been around and will continue to be around for an awfully long time – nearly 14 billion years so far, we’re told, with roughly the same still to come. Yet still its span is finite. St John 3:15 speaks of “life without end” but modern science suggests that at least in the material sense this just ain’t so. Planet Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old. Earthly Life seems to have begun nearly four billion years ago. But the Sun on which we all depend seems set to destroy itself in another 5 billion years or so, and long before it finally gives up the Earth will become uninhabitable, at least for delicate creatures like us. (Extremophiles like the bacteria that thrive in hydrothermal vents should outlive us for many millions of years. Perhaps they are just biding their time).
So perhaps we should rein in the grandest vision – to maximize Life throughout the universe – and suggest more modestly that our Goal should be:
To maximize Life on Earth before the cosmos closes in on us, and renders the Earth uninhabitable
We should indeed, as Voltaire’s Candide proposed:
“Cultivate our own garden”
Our garden is that of Planet Earth. But whatever we may choose to do in small and special places like the paradise gardens of Japan or the knot gardens of Medieval England or indeed the picture postcard landscapes of Capability Brown (1716-1793), in our dealings with the stupendous and sublime garden of Planet Earth we must be humble, arm’s length gardeners: sustaining what is — not seeking to replace what is miraculously there with some tidy-minded concept of how it ought to be.
I would say that such a Goal really is serious. Compared with it, the simple desire to increase disposable wealth or indeed to annexe the West Bank or Greenland seems too trivial to contemplate. In truth, the ambition to maximize Life on Earth is modest compared to the even grander vision of maximizing all the Life of the universe. But it requires us nonetheless to think on a quite different timescale. Thus to modern governments, economists, bureaucrats and technologists – the people who set the tone of the modern world and largely determine how we all can live (and whether we can live at all) – 30 years is “the long term”. But Life on Earth has several billion years to run. If we go on as we are, frantically competing for material wealth and dominance, wrecking the natural world and destroying societies and civilizations along the way, we will be lucky to survive to the end of this century in a tolerable form and for many millions of people life is already intolerable, or indeed impossible, as it is for many or most of our fellow creatures. Yet if we played our cards carefully, and really were serious, then our descendants and most of our fellow species could and should still be here in a million years’ time – and then contemplate the millions more still to come.
It seems to me that unless we have a definable Goal in mind then we can have no sense of direction: and if we have no sense of direction then the much-vaunted concept of “progress” is meaningless. Mere change is not progress. More money per se is not progress. It’s what it’s used for that matters (and how it is raised, and who gets their hands on it). Smarter and bigger technologies may improve efficiency which is progress of a kind. But again what matters is what it is that is being done more efficiently. More bang to the dollar? More of the same can be progress – but only if what we have already is good. I suggest we might reasonably declare that whatever leads us towards the necessary Goal should be seen as “progress”, and whatever leads us further away is retrogressive. By the same token, we might reasonably suggest that whatever leads us towards the Goal is “good”; and whatever leads us away from the Goal is bad, not to say downright evil.
By these criteria it seems to me that most of what now is presented to us nightly on the News is both retrograde and evil. Trump has suggested that Gaza should be turned into a marina and resort for the well-heeled, which some might feel is a somewhat grisly vision. More realistically we should be asking – can Gaza ever recover at all from the devastation wrought upon it? Is it not doomed forever to be a field of rubble – at best a home for lizards and perhaps for Rock Hyraxes? Can Ukraine ever regain its past glories? Can Syria? Can Iran? What do the perpetrators of these evils think they are up to? It is not enough simply to declare that they are guilty of war crimes, or of crimes against humanity. Such absolute destruction on such a scale is a crime against the Cosmos. It is beyond crime. We need to re-invoke the concept of sin.
The Principles
I suggest that the principles – I would say the Bedrock Principles by which we should live – are those of Ecology and Morality.
Ecology is a science – or rather a consortium of sciences, for it partakes of all the sciences. But it must be firm-rooted in reality – in the humble pursuit of Natural History, the observation and recording of what is (see our blog: Fellow Creatures: the absolute importance of natural history, posted on August 16 2025). The science of ecology in turn must be underpinned (as indeed all big ideas in the end are underpinned) by ideas of a metaphysical kind. The key idea – which belongs both to science and to metaphysics — is that of Gaia, which we owe to the British scientist James Lovelock (1919-2022). He observed that the Earth or more specifically the biosphere, with contributions from the whole solar system, to a significant extent exhibits the property of homeostasis; the ability to maintain reasonably constant and equable conditions – conditions compatible with life – however hot or cold or generally hostile the cosmos as a whole may become. Homeostasis is one of the key features of living organisms. Thus, said Lovelock, Earth’s biosphere as a whole behaves as if it were an organism – a kind of meta-organism. Lovelock’s friend, the novelist William Golding (1911-1993) suggested that the Earth-qua-organism might appropriately be called Gaia, after the Greek goddess of the Earth.
Moral principles are of three main kinds: Utilitarian; Deontological; and Virtue Ethics. All have their strengths, and all should play some role in shaping our conceptions of good and evil, and acceptable and unacceptable, and hence in shaping the way we do things. But all have their weaknesses too.
In the present world Utilitarian ethics prevails; it is after all a “rationalist”, materialist philosophy, at home in this materialist age. The idea was famously summarized by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) as
“The greatest happiness of the greatest number”
This is all very well – but we should ask what it is that makes people happy. For instance, if six rich and well-connected Hooray Henries beat up one old tramp who nobody cares about we have six jolly revellers and just one old fellow who is deemed to be of no account who is made miserable. Yet people who are not Hooray Henries or quasi-Nazis feel nonetheless that it is wrong to beat people up, and especially to do so for fun. But utilitarian thinking per se doesn’t explain why that is bad. It doesn’t therefore get to the essence of what badness is. More generally, too, “happiness” is too easily equated with hedonism – mere pleasure-seeking, which as many a folk-tale forewarns can be immensely destructive. So it is that in the modern world mangroves must make way for marinas. Where’s the fun in mangroves, except for crabs and mosquitoes?
Deontological ethics is rooted in the idea of duty. Duty too is a fine and necessary concept – but again it is not sufficient. For duty in practice means we should obey rules that have been laid down by some higher authority. If the higher authority is the Abrahamic God of mercy, then fair enough. But if God is misinterpreted (and no interpretation is universally agreed) or if the higher authority is some aggressive corporate, designed expressly to make its shareholders and executives richer by whatever means it can get away with, or perhaps is some vicious, totalitarian government, then obedience becomes at best morally dubious. “I was only obeying orders” – “doing my duty” – was the standard defence at the Nuremberg Nazi trials.
Virtue Ethics seems to derive from Aristotle, who simply asked in his pragmatic way, “What are the qualities by which we judge a person to be good?” Different societies have different views on this. Some emphasize courage; some prudence; some “honour” (although “honour” has shades of egoism and self-importance, and the pursuit of honour has often led to the vilest of actions, as reflected not least in the epics of Homer).
Yet among the long list of putative virtues three in particular stand out: Compassion; Humility; and A Sense of Oneness: the oneness of all human beings with other human beings, and of all humanity with our fellow creatures and the biosphere as a whole. All three of these prime virtues are at the heart of the moral codes of all the major religions and of many indigenous belief systems too (although Christianity does not properly stress the oneness of humanity with the rest of nature, and often indeed seems keen to emphasise our specialness, and our superiority). Thus these virtues are almost universal: deeply embedded within us; key components of “human nature”. Why and how these virtues got into our psyche is up for no doubt endless discussion. Our genetic inheritance clearly plays a part. As the Dutch primatologist Franz de Waal (1948-2024) has pointed out, other intelligent animals including dogs and chimps also show compassion, which often extends not simply to their own blood relatives but to others of their ilk and even to other species.
It seems to me that these three, almost universally accepted virtues provide us with all the moral philosophy we really need by which to judge our own and others’ actions. Thus we might ask: Would anyone with an any sense of the Oneness of humanity with the natural world, trash an ancient forest with all its staggering richness, just to make way for soya to be fed to cattle and pigs to be sold to rich people who don’t need it? Or indeed to make way for high-speed trains designed simply to clip a few minutes off journeys that no-one really needs to make? Or pour raw sewage into pristine streams and lakes and seas just to make rich shareholders richer (and to pay outrageous salaries to the execs)? And so on.
And would anyone with an ounce of compassion wipe out entire populations of their fellow human beings just to grab land that they don’t really need, and expropriate its resources?
In practice indeed the single virtue of Compassion covers most eventualities. As the Dalai Lama said in a lecture at Oxford which I was lucky enough to attend a few years back:
“Always ask yourself, what is the most compassionate thing to do?”
It is remarkable how many ethical dilemmas are solved just by asking that simple question.
In summary, it is indeed very obvious as M Macron says that Trump and his fellow travellers are not serious in any worthwhile sense — although they are not serious enough to see this, and take themselves very seriously. But it is also true once we look beneath the surface that conventional politics and economics and general bureaucratic thinking are not serious either: not if we seriously care about the future of humanity and of Life on Earth.
So is there hope?
Hope really is a sine qua non. If we once lose hope then we really are lost. That’s all very well – but are there reasons to be hopeful? Of course there are, is the answer. The task before us (humanity) is enormous but if we take serious things seriously then surely we can do what’s needed. Hope lies with ourselves – with people at large: people of the kind who George Orwell was content to call “ordinary”: Ordinary Joes and Jos.
We need first of all to believe in ourselves – and there is good reason to do so. As I have suggested many times before, not least on this website, generations of intellectuals, prophets and theologians have queued up these past few millennia to tell us what a bad lot we are. But it just isn’t so. To be sure, most of us are eminently capable of behaving badly. But all of us too – or all, that is, apart from a few deeply damaged psychopaths – harbour deep within ourselves what Abraham Lincoln after the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 called
“The better angels of our nature”
And I never tire of quoting the 14- or 15-year-old Anne Frank (1929-1945) who wrote in her diary circa 1941 as she and her family hid from the Gestapo in a Dutch attic:
“It’s really a wonder that I haven’t dropped all my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them, because in spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart”
In short, I am sure that most people (by far the majority) are nice – or least would prefer to be, if only niceness was an option: if only our own immediate circumstances and the general Zeitgeist did not encourage and require us to behave nastily.
“Nice” is one of those (many) very useful words that everyone feels they know the meaning of but defies formal, legalistic definition – and indeed should not be defined too rigidly. The people we call nice possess and act upon at least the first two of the three bedrock virtues. Above all the word implies compassion — a true concern for the wellbeing of others and for the state of the world as a whole; and a willingness – indeed an eagerness – to help others in distress, albeit at one’s own cost and risk. It also implies humility. Humble does not mean obsequious. It simply implies that we do not assume our own superiority, or the right to treat others with disdain, and are always prepared to consider, as Cromwell advised, that we could be wrong. Modesty, in other words.
Niceness also tends to be equated with friendliness. But some people who are fundamentally nice may be austere, and appear distant; and affable people may be nasty. As Hamlet observed re his uncle Claudius (Act I Scene 2):
“One may smile and smile and be a villain”
I leave you to nominate your own candidates.
Sceptics might argue – indeed do argue – that Anne Frank’s optimism was and is just wishful thinking. As discussed elsewhere on this website, intellectuals of all stripes, including many a cleric, have queued up these past few thousand years to tell us what a bad lot we are. Some – many – have argued in recent years that we are indeed evolved to be nasty. Thus Darwin himself in The Origin of Species in 1859 stressed the role of competition in natural selection, which he saw as a prime driver of natural selection. Nowadays the economic norm worldwide is neoliberalism – conceived as all-out competition for material gain and dominance. Neoliberals are wont to suggest that their favoured economic formula is Darwinian, and therefore “natural”, and what is natural, they imply, is therefore OK.
This is obviously bad morality – and it is also bad biology. For there are very good biological reasons for believing in our better angels. That we should feel the urge to be cooperative is in truth a Darwinian prediction. Cooperativeness is a quality that must be favoured by natural selection. Darwin knew this of course – and also acknowledged the importance of cooperation. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that cooperativeness is the most universally effective survival tactic of all. If different individual creatures did not cooperate with others of their own species, there could be no societies, or indeed no families. If creatures of different species did not cooperate, there would be no ecosystems, and no Gaia. In fact, if molecules of different kinds did not cooperate – amino acids and nucleotides in particular, the raw materials of proteins and nucleic acids – there would be no life at all, or not at least of the kind we know on Earth.
And at least in intelligent creatures like us, who at least to a significant extent can choose how to behave, the urge to cooperate is reinforced and to a large extent is dependent upon our capacity for compassion. We cooperate better if we truly care about the wellbeing of the people or the beasts we cooperate with. Compassion in short is an evolved, “natural” capacity favoured by natural selection. I have discussed all this at greater length in various blogs on this website, including The Battle for Darwin’s Soul (July 22 2024); Life is a master-class in cooperativeness (June 17 2024) and The Biology of Compassion: work in progress (June 13 2024). Indeed I wrote a whole book on the subject: Why Genes are Not Selfish and People are Nice (Floris Books, 2012).
It is obvious too that people at large are sensible: that we at least have enough grasp of life’s realities to be able to get by. Otherwise we would not be here. The combination of innate niceness and cooperativeness and good sense has enabled us, humanity, to combine our skills to produce wonders; not as sublimely wonderful as the works of Nature but wondrous nonetheless. These achievements are helped and enhanced by people of genius: scientists, artists, philosophers, theologians, prophets, mystics, and shamans: rare beings of huge imagination who see further than most of us. But genius is only an extrapolation of the remarkable qualities that all “ordinary” human beings possess, and is made manifest in all the crafts and in our ability to form communities. Our innate niceness and good sense in combination have given rise to a multitude of grassroots movements of all kinds; and if conditions were conducive, those grassroots movements would enable humanity to thrive, alongside and in harmony with our fellow creatures, for aeons to come.
The present world, run on present lines by the people who now hold power, is simply inviable. In the very long term, so science tells us, the whole universe is heading for a state of entropy — and long before that happens the human species will cease to be. But still we could and should have many millions of years before us and it seems at least sensible to live them to the full. To achieve this we need to create conditions in which the better angels of our nature can come to the fore – in which, indeed, they dare to stick their heads above the parapet. The role of governments is not to boss us around. It is to unleash the innate talents and good will of humanity and enable good things to happen. At present, to a large extent, even the more benign governments are wont to do the precise opposite as they pursue what they see as the inescapable need for money and power.
In summary:
If we seriously care about the wellbeing and the long-term future of humanity and about the future of life on Earth, then the infrastructure of society (governance, the economy, and the law), and all our principal technologies, must be geared to the Goal of convivial societies, personal fulfilment, within a flourishing biosphere, and rooted in the Bedrock Principles of Ecological reality and Morality (compassion, humility, the sense of oneness). In practice, our Focus must be on food and farming – how to provide good food for everyone without wrecking the rest. All the rest, in effect, at best, is diversion.
But no government, no matter how benign, is doing what needs to be done, or, indeed, has properly analysed the world’s real problems. As a result, much and probably most of what is happening is leading us in the opposite direction to where we need to be going.
Hope lies with the innate goodness and good sense of “ordinary people” and in “grassroots” movements of all kinds, the world over.
We need to get our act together. We really do need the people-led Renaissance.
Clearly, there is much more to say on all this and I hope to return to at least some of it in future blogs. As always, I very much hope very that others will join in.
To be continued …
Share this article: