Medan du ser bort så blir samhället lite råare varje gång.

 Det här är något jag skrev för ungefär 5 år sedan. Jag har sedan dess bytt ståndpunkt på en del detaljer, men kärnan i det består. Denna text kändes fortfarande aktuell or det är därför jag publicerar den här, delvis inspirerad av händelsen nyligen och hur samhället har utvecklat sig. 5 år kan verka kort, och det är kort tid, men det är ändå en del tid.

Det är inte så länge som folk utomlands såg Sverige som en förebild bland andra länder. Det var bara 20 år sedan I princip. Även om Sverige fortfarande har ett bra anseende, liksom att levnadsstandarden här och de val som varje enskild kan göra är många, friare och som det verkar I de flesta fall bättre än på andra platser, så är det inte längre samma sak.

Idag är Sverige mer likt övriga världen. På gott och ont.

När man ser på gatubilden idag så ser det ut som jag tidigare skrivit och varnat för lite som I Baltikum I mitten av 90-talet. Där har vi hyperkapitalism som ackompanerades av spruckna banker, pyramidspel och annat som var allt än bidragande till ett stabilt samhälle. Här har vi istället vårdföretag och skolföretag som via mindra avancerade metoder drar pengar från något som även hårt kapitalistiska länder anser bör vara vinstbefriade och höra till det ällmannas bästa.

Vi har haft en hel parad av nyliberala ekonomiska cirkuseffekter som bidragit till att de flesta kunnat känna sig rika på belånade medel, allt medan vår infrastruktur och vårt  I alla fall partiella oberoende vittrat bort och bytts ut till ett beroende och sårbarhet.  (Konstiga skattekonster, fundamentala skatteexperiment som ändrat skattesystemet, avdrag, borttagandet av fastighetskatten, osv.)

Kort sagt… vi har alla levt på mamma och pappas och mor-/far-/fars och far-mor-/mors  pengar och arbete.  Att de en gång när ekonomin gick bra, passade på att bygga samhällen, vägar, broar, hus osv som var gjorda för fler människor än då bodde I Sverige har räckt länge ….i stort sett till idag, då det börjar vittra sönder. Nu är det slut.

På grund av allt detta har man kunnat senaste åren känna sig rik, och ha ett överflöd som skulle ur alla synvinklar kallas för en lyx.

Samtidigt som de som faktiskt byggde det hela och uppfostrade dagens lite äldre generation som har haft ett på det stora hela bra liv  - ja de får vi höra om när vården inte funkar. Man får intrycket att de långsamt ruttnar bort någonstans, för de syns sällan ute.

Och till slut…nu finns tiggarna på gatan. Av olika orsaker. Men med skillnaden att de inte är våldsamma I alla fall.

Men undan för undan har alla vant sig. I små steg.

Men för varje gång du ser bort blir samhället lite råare för varje gång.

Varje gång vänjer du dig allt mer och sen slutar du reagera på det. Men hoppas på att det aldrig kommer vara du.

Att livet skall fortsätta leka, att inflationen skall äta upp lånen, att värderingen skall stiga och att problemen skall kunna hållas på avstånd med mer pengar.

Men vad händer om du blir sjuk?

Eller om du förlorar jobbet? Eller din partner gör det?

Hur skall du förklara för barnen att de inte får leka med de fattigare barnen?

Eller varför de barnens föräldrar inte har råd med sånt som du har och de fattiga barnen beter sig illa mot dina barn för det?

Eller hur skall du få dem att satsa på framtida höjdarutbildningar och yrken - inte minst om de inte har talang för det utan något helt annat, och kanske på kuppen blir egoistiska skitstövlar som kommer överge dig när du är gammal och ointressant. Vågar du ta risken?

Men varje gång du ser bort så kommer det närmare. För du tar inte ställning utan låter något fortgå. Trots allt är staten - som man förutsätter skall ta ett ansvar - är du och jag, grannarna och alla andra.

Det gäller allt från att man struntar I när någon beter sig illa, skriker på en tiggare, anser sig stå över andra, slår sin fru/man/barn/hund/katt, om tåget är I tid, massavlyssning, eller procentsatsen som är skillnaden mellan politikers A och politikers B löften - eller inte tar dig tid att sätta in dig I ett problem I förhoppningen att det försvinner.

Demokratin är ingen självklarhet.

Folk har slagits och dött för den.

Den slapphet som råder idag på så många plan med inställningen att demokrati är någon sorts självklarhet  är bizarr. Den genomsyrar samhället.

Tittar du bort för mycket och tänker att det händer bara andra riskerar du att vakna en dag I en liknande situation eller en diktatur, som du har försatt dig och dina barn i.

Tänk på det nästa gång du tittar dig I spegeln på morgonen. 

/Teheimar

Every time you look away society becomes a bit harder and colder.

 This is something I wrote about 5 years ago. I have since that time grown up a bit and changed view on some details, but the core of this stands. It seemed still actual and therefore I am posting this, partially inspired by recent events and how society has developed over time. 5 years seems short, and it is short, but it's still quite some time.  

It's not that long ago when people abroad saw Sweden as a role model amongst other countries. It was more or less just 20 years ago. And even if Sweden still has a good reputation, as well as the living standard here and the choices an individual can make are many, more free and as it seems better than in a lot of other places, it's not the same as it used to be.

Today Sweden is more similar to the rest of the world. For better or worse.

When you look at the streets it looks more similar to what I have written about earlier and somewhat warned about, the Baltic's during the 90s. There was hypercapitalism accompanied by busted banks, pyramid schemes and other things that were everything but contributing to a stable society. Here we have instead care businesses and education businesses that through more or less advanced methods draw money from some things that even more expressed capitalist countries see upon as something that should be perhaps without the usual form of profit and more to the benefit of the public.

We have had a whole parade of neo-liberal economic "circus" effects that that contributed to many being able feeling themselves rich on loans, all while our infrastructure and our in many cases at least partial independence slowly crumbles and is substituted for a dependence and vulnerability. (Strange tax phenomenons, experiments with fundamental tax that have changed the tax system, reductions, making away with the property tax - which has contributed to a somewhat runaway pricing, etc)

In short - we have all lived on "moms" and "dads" and also our grandparents cash and work results in a sense. That they have made once in the past when the economy was really good, made it possible to build societies, roads, bridges, houses etc that were built for more at that time than there where people in Sweden then, all that has been enough until recently, when it's has started to crumble. Now new things and investments are needed.

Thanks to all this, we've been able to feel us rich the latest decades, and have a affluence that is more or less luxurious.

At the same time we rarely see those individuals that built all this and also brought up current generations and that have had all in all a good life. We hear about the elder ones when the hospital and medical care doesn't work, because they are rarely seen outdoors.

And now - there are beggars in the streets. For different reasons. But with the difference that they are not violent at least.

But slowly, step by step, everyone seems to be getting used to it.  The changes brought by small steps.

But for every time you look away society become slightly rougher ever time.

Every time you get more used to it and soon stop reacting to it. But hope at the same time that it will never be you or affect you.

That life will continue to be carefree, that the inflation will "eat" the loans, that the worth (of your housing) will continue to rise and that the problems can be kept at a distance with more money.

But what happens if you fall ill?

Or if you loose your job? Or your partner does it?

How will you explain to the kids that they are not allowed to play with the poorer children? Or why the other kids parents can't afford those things you can and the poor children behave badly towards your kids because of that?

Or how will you make them (your kids) put an effort in future good education and professions - not at least if they don't have talent for that but for something else, and maybe if they at the same time turn out to be egotistical assholes that will abandon you when you are old and uninteresting? Are you willing to take the risk?

But every time you look away it comes closer. Because you don't take a stand and let it or something else continue having it's (bad) way.  The nation/state/society is after all you, me, the neighbors and everyone else together.

This encompasses everything from not reacting if someone behaves badly, shouts at a beggar,  considers him/herself standing over others, beats his/hers wife/man/child/dog/cat, if the train is on time, mass surveillance, or the percentage that is the difference between politicians A's proposal versus politician's B's proposal - or just don't take the time to put you in a problems by hoping it disappears by itself.

Democracy is not self-evident.

People have fought and died for it.

The laxity that exists today on so many levels with an attitude that democracy is something self-evident and self-sustaining is bizarre. It has come to permeate large parts of society.  If you look away too much and think that everything only happens to others, then you are risking awakening one day in a similar situation or in a dictatorship, that you have plunged you and your kids into yourself.

Think about that next time you look at yourself in the mirror. 

/Teheimar

An old Idea - A health insurance system for pets

This is a fairly old idea as well, but it got complete just about over 2 years ago due to quite dire circumstances.

The idea is originally a more "Swedish" and to a large extent Nordic/Scandinavian one in its full description since it mostly applies to the Swedish societal and tax system, as well as perhaps culture. It is also described as situated from a Swedish perspective. However in the interest of debate and public opinion it is here presented more loosely with focus on its core principles. If you like it, you are most welcome to use it.

The Swedish version (in Swedish) can be found here (not published yet, will be updated soon).

Healthcare for animals

Healthcare for animals isn't by far anything unusual today, on the contrary. However this as a system that is self-financed, and thus isn't in its extent and details as integrated and well financed as a comparatively full healthcare system would be or is in many countries for people. Those parts of the animal healthcare system that cover cattle and such (mostly non pet/companion animals) are both regulated and have oversight, but others do not.

And herein lies an issue I'd like to bring up.

The healthcare for pets.

Todays it is financed by the pet owners - which is fine but could get better.

Pets and urbanization

All the more people globally move to and live in urban areas, and as the trend continues now there will be more urban areas in the near future. However while living in a city does mean giving up on more rural type of living, farming and animal husbandry, that doesn't seem to apply to pets (primarily dogs and cat's but also all other sorts of animals today).

People like keeping pets around and that isn't dependent on income - even when it seemingly is far to expensive to be reasonable.

And pets also get ill as everyone else. Also a urban lifestyle does affect pets.

The problems with singular self-financing today.

So no matter what people seem to keep pets. It doesn't seem to get affected by income levels, if one is single or not, or age.

And if people feel lonely without pets that fine too. I do suspect quite many elderly people are kept healthier, more mobile thanks to their pets.

Therefore I suggest that it is in the public interest of a modern society to have a better pet healthcare system. With the added benefit that new models for healthcare could be tested there first before being translated and deployed to ordinary (human) healthcare - due to the similarities between humans and the two big categories of pets - cats and dogs.

Drawbacks of the current system in Sweden and presumably large parts of the Big North/Western world.

In order to highlight would could be better, I'll start with listing the drawbacks with today's system, as referenced by the Swedish one:

Self-pay + voluntary insurance financed system seems to mean that:

• the pet owner(s) has to be financially fairly wealthy to cover more expensive ailments;
• that mostly pet's with more usual illness are the ones that can get remedied and are more economically viable to treat;
• that pet's with more rare or complex diseases are cheaper to euthanize then treat;
• that way animals with more rare and complex diseases don't come as often as it would be necessary with medical research in order to get proper statistics, do research and hopefully find a cure, thus also cheapening a cure and making it scalable and effective.
• Can't therefore properly contribute to the efforts of getting healthier pets by more than advising not breeding more unhealthy individuals - but that's something still many disregard.
• contributes partially to making research on some conditions affecting both dogs and humans go slower than it could be.
• Probably prevents having preventive healthcare and regular checkups for pet's.

All of this contributes to more suffering for both the pet's themselves and the pet owners. I am aware that many see pet's as being not as sensitive and intelligent as humans - and to some extent it might be so - but more recent research seems to indicate that we are a lot more similar than we'd like to admit.

 A different system - modeled after a welfare model

So what do I propose:

Basically a separate, welfare, participatory healthcare system with three main goals:

• bringing cost down per mean individual  and mean individual medical visit, better health, life expectancy and quality of life.
• Sufficient statistics for research, better patient and owner contact and matching with doctor and scientist, as well as better funding
• Preventive healthcare, including regular check-ups, tracking and advice.

One way of doing that ae taxes on pets - that would be balanced to income but also have a separate premium parts depending on how many participants there are in such a collaboratory "welfare-modeled healthcare system". But I presume that it would result in a cheaper overall costs per mean individual since that way

• there are more participants
• there can be budgetary planning and review
• Preventive healthcare should contribute keeping costs down in the long run, but not the short.
• Better tracking of actual populations of pets and their problems.

Another alternative would be a system modeled after the Dutch healthcare system. It would still entail mandatory participation - but you choose yourself the adequate level of commitment to the health (insurance)system and its various actors - who can range from companies to foundations that reinvest the profits. Which would be more attractive to the more liberally or even conservatively inclined and perhaps even better due to the possible choices.

All of this could hopefully provide a better health, standard of life to primarily the pets and the pet owners as well as ease it to the pet owners to be responsible by making it easier to be a pet owner, especially in a urban setting of today's world.

And of course, if one has more than one pet - there should be rebates.

And of course if a state wishes to couple this with a voluntary or mandatory pet training courses, that is also possible.

/Mark Kesper aka Teheimar.

Geographer.

A old idea -Two jobs equals one job for better overall health?

This is an old idea from several years ago. It's guess it's about 10-12 years. 

The idea started out as a thought experiment, and went at that time also through several ideological filter as in why it would be good, or preferable in one sense or another. However, at the end of it I'd prefer having it less dependent on ideology and more dependent on the three general questions that do concern public health, workforce health, and living conditions for a near future that affects the current and upgrowing generations.

As much as I'd like, there is no real way for me as a geographer to patent ideas, but at the same time sitting and not telling about them is equally bad, if not worse, since then there is no possibility to spread the idea for debate and see what other - dear, respected to me people and everyone else think about it.

So here it is.

As of now I really try to keep the ideas short and concise - which for those knowing me - is really, really hard.

And also since I'm short on time you'll have to live with me not having references.

Two jobs combined into one for better health in the near future?

Today we (as in basically very large parts of the industrialized, rapidly industrializing and semi-industrialized world are facing the following issues:

• Current generation (20-65?) and those growing up will with high probability need to work longer until they can retire for several reasons. And as sad as it seems the new span for retirement might be somewhere between 69-75 years.
• Even if public health overall is getting better, there are still and will be questions on how big parts of the workforce collective will manage to that age retaining maximum health, mobility, life happiness and enjoyment and motivation for doing things?

That considering that the current and soon to be retirees (between say ca 55 - to 67 years in Sweden) can fairly often be tired and physiologically and psychologically worn or even worn-out.

So the central question is:

How do we manage to work until somewhere between 65 - to 75 years of age, without getting too worn out, keeping good health and mobility, and being still happy and fulfilling life? Movement is important!

Well after some (fairly long thought) I have the following idea:

Todays jobs are kind of static in what we do. They have the upside of niched specialization, but computerization has brought quite many to be very sedentary (sitting) at work, and at the same time stress is tearing through society - which isn't a good combination. Others that work more physically seem to need to exert themselves all to more while competing with robotization and rationalization and thus wearing themselves out physically - not only risking it. I'm keeping things simple here - of course we do have the whole issues with sweatshops, education and so on, not denying that.

What if it would be possible to reform society so that those who want can basically have two matching part-time jobs that together would form a by todays standard a full-time job with a full time wage, but these two jobs have to differ from each other: One has to be more physical and the other more intellectual in order to give the worker/employee maximum variation and stimulation over the workweek or workmonth (that's for scientist and medics to decide).

To illustrate, say the following possibilities would exists:

IT-programmer + Daycare center/Kindergarten teacher

Car/Vehicle Mechanic + Traffic operations leader

Office worker + gardener/hipster bazaar salesperson ;)

I'm not at all sure it the best divide is 50% + 50% or if it is 40% to 60%. That would translate into either 2.5 day + 2.5 day of work or respectively 2+3 days.

Also, this is independent of if future society has 8 or 6 hours work/day.

The main point would be that whilst it would indeed take more time to get better at ones work compared to today, it would give a more overall and varied load.

If this is a OK idea I hope the consequences are:

1. Better overall health and mobility.
2. Easier to detect on-set of health related problems early on and thus prevent them, thus also lowering medical costs and enabling medical coverage for more people (effectivization). And lessening suffering and pain.
3. A possibly bigger pluralism or work places and jobs?
4. Longer life-spans?

Now the downsides are:

1. The educational system has to have space and resources for a doubling of professions for each individual. However it all depends also how such a system is set up and what schools to look like and how they work.
2. This isn't probably suitable for everyone, but maybe for sufficient number of peoples?
3. This doesn't eliminate stress of course, but might be a coping strategy and if well constructed be able to lower stress levels (I imagine)?

So, that's the idea.

As a bonus, one could perhaps use a model found in some (at least that I know about) swedish state-owned workplaces combined with a japanese (as I've heard) idea relevant for primarily the elderly among the workforce and retired people:

 When nearing retirement, a worker/employee would scale back on the main work and get more free time to, and when already retired they could still (and get a little payment of course) work with things that are mobile and good for keeping mobility and health up some smaller part of the week. The example I've read about involved working in tending park and green areas just a couple of days, getting payed on-top of the pension and thus might be win-win for both the individual and society.