Is individuality genetic or learnt?

Recently on ITV there was a programme (Four of a kind) about identical all girl quads. As a parents of twins girls (non-identical) it was emotional to observe some of the pleasures and pains we have been through, but multiplied by 2 again! What really fascinated me was that the Mother brought up her four daughters, now aged five, exactly the same. They wore the same, ate the same, did the same activities. Each one was treated equally and as they had not gone to nursery each one had the same experiences and interacted with the same people. At one point in the programme the Mother went to the USA where she met another set of all girl identical quads and their mother the difference being they were now lippy loud 18 year olds. She spoke with each one separately and asked how they felt about being one of a quad and all four said they wanted to be recognised for their differences not their similarities. They clearly had a hunger for independence from their siblings and wanted to express their individuality. Back home she then asked her five year olds whether they felt the same or different to each other and by large even at that age they wanted to be different. The end of the programme was on their 5th birthday when they were allowed to choose their own dresses and each one chose different colours and designs. It was very touching and you could see how happy they were to pick their own identity.

So are we born with individualistic tendencies or is it something we develop? Well these quads are genetically identical so it would suggest the 2nd option? This makes sense to me, that when part of a group you strive to differentiate yourself, to stand out. That's not the same for all people. Often, and even in this programme people are happy to let others take the limelight but does that mean they are not individuals or are they just different? When I think how one of our daughters might declare "I don't want stripy trousers I want the one with a butterfly on", or "I want Eeyore panties not Winnie the Pooh", our typical response is to say this is what you are wearing stop arguing. Yet what if this is a very early stage of being an individual and rather than supress it should it be encouraged. On one side it is creating a world of hell where a 3 year old rules the roost saying what they will or won't wear. On the other are you planting the seeds to help develop a child into an independent individual with confidence to make their own choices?

It is hard to argue that being independent is not a good thing but what about being an individual? Does being different make you happier, more confident, more employable, more interesting? I don't know. I've met many people in my life who make such big efforts to appear individual, displaying their unique tastes and interest in an almost arrogant "I don't care what you think" way. It always leaves me feeling that they are not someone I want to hang around with. Perhaps that's because I don't see myself as individualistic, I quite like being part of the crowd and not standing out. Or perhaps it is because these extremes are not really people being different but more they are trying not to be the same.

Bringing up children is scary when you consider how small changes in our behaviour can have big effects in the people they become. There are so many opinions in what the right thing to do for every situation and much of it is not based on any formal theory. My view is to try and achieve a balance where they are given opportunity to express their choices, and are listened to and noticed when they do. But also not to force independence on them, they should find this on their own through more experiences than we can even begin to imagine. Whatever the outcome it will be fascinating to see how different or similar our girls end up.

Prologue to a book - shall I write it?

Prologue

There were four major shifts that brought about the Spread. The first was the creation of matter engines in the 90’s – a mid-point between conventional rocket engines and light speed. It meant that for the first time we could explore our galaxy, discover new worlds and create new dreams.

The second came by 2150, after 150 years exploring our Galaxy for planets in a ‘Goldilocks zone’. These were locations that were not too hot or too cold and therefore suitable to have liquid water – one of the basics for an ecosystem. The 1000’s of candidate planets were narrowed down to 100 that could be terraformed into supporting human life.

The third was when the ambition of Earths largest corporations grew larger than the planet in which they were born. Their quadrillions turned the space industry into the biggest market the business world had ever experienced. Initially terra forming star ships were created – they were nicknamed ‘planet-in-a-box’ and provided atmospheres, satellites, mining tools, habitats, power stations, medical centres and science parks. Each corporation developed a business plan to take these planet makers and buy themselves a new home. It took a further 30 years before the first new planets were habitable and during this time corporations recruited armies of employees who sacrificed the rest of their lives in the 70+ years it took to travel to their new homes. By 2300 there were over 40 populated new-earths, each one owned by a company, and lived in by the descendants of what had been the most lucky or usually richest people that earth had once housed. The closest two worlds were 120 years of matter flight apart. The furthest over 400.

The final shift that made the Spread happen with such urgency was the failure of mankind to prevent Earth’s climate collapsing. The worst fears of climatologists were realised when by 2050 the tipping point was passed, global temperatures reached unprecedented levels, rain forests dried up and the polar ice caps melted. The next 100 years saw disaster after disaster, hundreds of millions died. The 2160 London earth crisis summit put into place the recovery plan, but few could accept that it would only be their great, great, grand children that may see a greener calmer Earth. Instead there was a scramble to be part of the Spread. Since it was funded and owned by business, at first it was the rich that became ‘space staff’ and took the first wave of transports. Then the middle class gave up their life savings, their homes – everything they owned to travel. By 2300 Earth was populated by the poor. The Professionals, the politicians, the entrepreneurs all departed for a better life. The new class system was Earth class and galaxy class. The later resigned Earth, its problems and its people as a lost cause. They had to concentrate on building a new life, a new society in a new world and Earth was simply forgotten.

The distance between the planets meant it was unprofitable for planets to do much trade, so while they grew their populations, created infrastructure and of course a currency the 40 new-earths lost contact with each other. It was ironic that the biggest jump in space travel, the greatest moment in humanities desire to explore disappeared as quickly as it begun. There was no desire to find any more planets, and the corporations resources were entirely consumed with their existing homes. Scientists predicted that it would take five generations before a population could become stable and could once again start looking up at the stars and seeing what was out there. But it took ten generations before the desire by their inhabitants to bother.

In 2400, Gruewtopia a planet rich in ore made contact with Kester7 whose founders were a huge software corporation. They agreed to create a network of nodes throughout the planets that for the first time would mean instant communication between worlds. Those planets too far to travel were sent long distance communications with the design plans. The G-web regulated and charged for by its creators was switched on, on 13th March 2447. 32 planets were connected, those that weren’t either had nothing to trade, the population had failed or they chose solitude. Only one planet had no invitation – Earth remained silent

Progressive? Tuition fee rises are anything but...

In the just approved changes in University funding, the buzz word throughout the coalition campaign has been 'progressive'. So here we are approaching 2011 a date that as children some of us dreamed of a futuristic time with Star Trek inspired utopian aspirations. Yet the reality, the sad tragic truth is our government seems to have lost even the hope of such ideologies.

Flavors of these ideals are the values that are natural to us all - to want to achieve and aim to better our health, happiness, safety and of course education. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where the government strive to increase the education and knowledge of the masses and promote a broad spectrum of subjects. Instead we find out selves in the perverse situation that our children will have to incur massive debt just for the right to study. As a consequence of the debt, most students will have to consider a degree that will benefit them the most financially in the future, not what interests them. What hope is there for subjects like arts and humanities?

For me, it's not the fact that these fees are now legislation, it's that hardly any politician even aspires for education to be free. They have lost sight of societies goal as a whole, to better it self, to improve our standards of living, our well being and our knowledge. Instead much like anything these days everything becomes swallowed in a money obsessed world.

I am so enormously proud of the student protests. We complain of apathy yet as soon as we stand up for something the media distorts the truth and portrays the whole thing as riots. Isn't it funny that for every nutter smashing a window in, there are 30 journalists and photographers standing next to them. Not telling the guy to stop, but masturbating his already inflamed anger with flash photography - what a joke. To see how the media distorts the truth check out this page which shows the same photo used on every newspaper in the last student demo
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2010/11/nus-protest-front-pages/

Yet here is the photo zoomed out, notice the gaggle of photographers enjoying the show
http://www.caiwingfield.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Screen-shot-2010-11-11-at-8.03.09am.png

The coalition complain about misinformation. What about the fact that this whole friggin deal is about reducing our deficit yet the reality is the government will have to borrow BILLIONS to fund the new loans. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) economic and fiscal outlook for November 2010 says

“Increasing tuition fees will mean the Government will have to borrow more to fund student loans. The additional cash needed to fund the loans increases the Government’s cash requirement in any year and adds to the public sector net debt. Assuming that student numbers remain at their current levels, the OBR estimates that increasing tuition fees will require the Government to borrow £10.7 billion to fund student loans in 2015/16 compared to the £4.1 billion it borrowed in 2010/11. If the Government’s plans are voted through, they will add a whopping £13 billion to public sector net debt by 2015/16."

These new fees will also make us charge more for an education here than anywhere in the world according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.(http://www.oecd.org/document 35/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_37455,00.html)

Doesn't it make you proud to be British..?

Politicians use the word 'progressive' when discussing these changes and it makes me sick to my stomach. They are not progressive, they are not even conservative. It's a huge backward step, and a damaging pitiful reflection on how the leaders of our society have lost their way.

Beam me up scotty