The irony of artificial intelligence is that it has reminded us how bad many of us are at talking to one another.

Every day, people type questions into a box and expect the exact answers to appear on the other side. And sometimes they do — but more often, what emerges is an oddly cheerful robot reciting half-remembered phrases about leadership, meal plans or showing you what it thinks you want it to.

The user sighs, mutters something about “AI not being that smart,” and closes the tab.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: it wasn’t the machine that failed to communicate — it was the human.

💬 The Mirror of the Machine

To “prompt” an AI effectively, you have to do something very old-fashioned: think clearly about what you want to say.

You must choose words with care. Offer context. Be specific. Ask with intention.

You must, in short, communicate like a human who knows how to listen, empathise, and express themselves.

For many of us, that is harder than it sounds.
We live in an age of speed and noise — of half-sentences, emojis, and “you know what I mean”s.

But the machine doesn’t know what you mean.
It only knows what you type.

🪞 Clarity as a Form of Care

AI is a mirror. It shows us the gaps between what we think we’ve said and what we’ve actually said.

And those gaps are everywhere — in marriages, workplaces, politics, WhatsApp groups, and family dinners.

“Miscommunication, not malice, is behind so much of the modern mess.”

When you write a good AI prompt, you’re not just talking to a system.
You’re demonstrating clarity of thought, self-awareness, and purpose.

“What do I actually mean?”

“What do I actually want?”

These are not questions for machines — they are questions for all of us.

💡 Empathy, Not Efficiency

A good prompt begins with respect — for language, for tone, for the mind on the other end of the line.

Maybe that’s the most important thing AI has to teach us:
that communication, like intelligence, begins with empathy.

Because that’s what’s missing in so much human dialogue now.
Not vocabulary. Not data. Empathy.

The willingness to think beyond ourselves — to imagine how another being, silicon or flesh, might interpret our words.

It’s not about getting better at AI.
It’s about getting better at being human.

🌍 The Bigger Conversation

Imagine if we all communicated with each other the way we’re learning to communicate with machines — with precision, patience, curiosity, and care.

Imagine the meetings, the relationships, the governments that might actually work.

We’d ask questions that mean something.
We’d listen for the answer.

Every great conversation — whether with a friend, a neighbour, or an algorithm — begins with the same small but profound act: choosing our words with compassion and clarity.

We all have thoughts that make us feel uncomfortable. But it’s important to remember that thought is not action. We cannot control all of our thoughts, we can control many of our actions.

Earlier today I passed a young woman on the path. I’d guess that she was sixteen — eighteen years old, and a part of my brain thought that she was attractive, and it told me so. But another part of my brain quickly jumped in and thought that I shouldn’t be thinking like that, and this tension felt uncomfortable.

I considered the situation, and realised the system was probably working well. Part of my brain is allowed to think that an eighteen year old is attractive, that’s healthy. What wouldn’t be good is if I acted upon those thoughts, I inherently know it is wrong to try and date an eighteen year old young woman. I am forty five.

And I also unpacked the part of my brain that sent the warning. It would be easy to feel a sense of shame in this process, but I also recognised that within the message you shouldn’t be thinking like that was the meaning you shouldn’t act upon that. I didn’t act upon it, and so I have no reason to feel any sense of self loathing.

Our brains can be our best friends, but they can also be our worst enemies. We cannot always control our thoughts and feelings— indeed some would argue that we can never truly control any thought — but we are certainly blessed with the ability to control our actions, in most cases.

I say most because, for example, brain damage or a mutation may mean this isn’t possible, but that is an area that I exclude from this missive.

The same could be said for xenophobia, or racism. A person may have been raised in an environment where disliking someone because of their accent or by the colour of their skin was acceptable, and perhaps even encouraged. But another part of their brain has the potential to consider this, and decide that I may not wish to act upon those thoughts that are purely formed because of experience and circumstance and in time unlearn that conditioning. The brain can consider that those things don’t define who a person actually is.

Choices are a wonderful opportunity, and most of us have the agency to make them.

Someone sent me a link to Neil Oliver on GB News a few weeks ago, I was more than a little surprised to see the archaeologist, historian and former Coast presenter on the same channel as Farage, and the same channel that an embarrassed Andrew O’Neil bid a hasty exit from. Still, “give it a chance”, I thought…

Oliver’s opening statement was “since when did we, the people, become the problem? Blah blah blah”. I write blah blah blah because I immediately switch off with absolutists. Humanity is rich with complexity and diversity, and as soon as anyone lumps “the people” together into a single entity, my Spidey Sense begins to send me the warning jingle jangles. Much the same way as when Johnson, one of the worst prime minister’s in UK history, begins to drone on about “the will of the people”, as though we are all of one mind.

Oliver continued, and it quickly became apparent that he was spinning the “anti-human” yarn.

We’ve seen this latest tactic gain momentum in recent years, not least from the terribly transparent Koch funded, global warming denying website Spiked!

Even the website name is bizarre when you stop to think about it. When a drink is spiked someone is planning to do something rather nasty to their victim without that person realising it, or being able to stop it. Which neatly sums up the insidious nature of most of their output.

Incidentally, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Koch family (pronounced ‘Coke’ by their fans, although in actuality it is of course pronounced Cock) had connections with the Nazi party. And before that, Stalin.

Who cares if its true or not, given how much disinformation they have force fed the world over the years, let’s give them a taste of their own malignant, malicious medicine. And in our new world of cancel where anything that has the slightest suggestion of a Russian connection, a business built using Nazi money must surely be cancelled with a capital C.

In case you missed it, we are now perpetuated with the absurd but unsurprisingly effective message that arguing for the climate catastrophe is now being “anti-human”. Its effectivity is unsurprising because any message that goes against the climate catastrophe is really attractive for a lot of people. For the wealthy elite minority it means another weapon in their sinister climate change denial arsenal, and for many ordinary people trying to live their lives in often difficult conditions, it’s another reason to avoid accepting the awful reality of what is happening, and what that reality will eventually mean for them, their friends and their families.

The anti human angle is also another stick with which to beat those nasty, intelligent, honest, caring scientists and their supporters who are trying to help save the world by showing us what is actually happening.

By twisting their messages into some sort of anti-humanity attack is just the latest in a long line of delay, deny, discredit tactics from the wealthy, greedy and powerful people who are seeing their facades crumble before their eyes. They haven’t crumbled anywhere near quickly enough, but soon their positions will become untenable. Sadly by then a lot of people, and species, will be dead.

In reality, of course, like so much of the climate denialists (yes, it’s a word, I looked it up!) rhetoric, a little scratch beneath the surface shows us how absurd it really is.

Firstly, humanity in its entirety is not to blame for the climate catastrophe.

Without going in to too much detail, most (cough) democracies have a system where a small number of people are entrusted with the power to make decisions that will look after the rest of us. That hasn’t gone terribly well, but that’s the general idea. These people have been given lots of information over the last forty years that show, increasingly unequivocally, that global warming has been worsened by certain types of human activity. Those in power have had a number of chances to change the situation and have failed. There can be no doubt about this.

Also, the very fact that some humans have developed the tools to show and help us to better understand the negative effects is amazing, what can be more Pro-human than the advance of science?

Yes, science is only the best understanding of something at any given time, and it is vitally that there is healthy caution and scepticism, but it is now undeniable that science and scientists have achieved, and continue to achieve, incredible things. And they were right all along about global warming being accelerated by some forms of human activity.

And the data, combined with what is actually happening in front of our very eyes right now, can leave us in no doubt that global warming is getting worse, that this is happening because of some human activity, and that this is really bad for the planet and all those that inhabit it.

To bravely accept the mistakes of the past, and to try to find ways to stop it worsening is the most wonderfully Pro-human thing that we could do. To deny it all is anti-human, and anti-sanity.

The anti-human angle is cunning. There is a lot of unfair guilt being pushed on people in relation to the climate catastrophe. But let’s be clear, it’s not your fault. It is the fault of a few powerful people that are in a position to do something about it and have, so far, failed the environment and humanity spectacularly.

Very often in this life, things can become so normalised that it never occurs to us to question them. We don’t actively accept these situations, but not challenging them could be regarded as a passive form of endorsement. And one conspicuous example immediately springs to mind. The “elite.”

The ‘elite’ are schooled to believe that they are born to lead.

If this comes as a galloping shock to you, I invite you to read an article in The New Statesman entitled The Eton Scholarship Question: this is how the British elite are trained to think.

It is a naked truth that the elite believe that they are born to rule, and why wouldn’t it be? Eton, Roedean, Gordonstoun, Cheltenham College for ladies and Winchester College, to name but a few, are considered by many people’s criteria to be the best schools that money can buy, and are therefore the most coveted. As a result they can demand the highest levels of achievement, and of course the highest fees, for places. Es lo que es, as they probably say at Westminster College. So they are the best of the best, and are nurtured as such, and must therefore be the ones to lead the rest of us.

There is one major flaw with this arrangement, it is utter bollocks.

For one thing, I imagine that most of the people who are offered the privilege of attending one of these palaces of pedagogy come from a specific section of society. And that section is strikingly, and unquestionably, a minority. It doesn’t take a genius to immediately see that this creates a big problem.

How can anyone be expected to lead a society that they aren’t directly connected to?

The “how much is a pint of milk” question is invariably wheeled out to embarrass politicians, often successfully. One has to ask oneself why don’t they have a Milk Department that closely analyses and reports on the fluctuations in milk prices? The truth is, I don’t know how much a pint of milk is either. I’m a woke flexitarian snowflake who doesn’t drink cow’s milk (actually it’s because the bovine beverage makes me feel ill), Minor Figures oat milk is my game and that’s around £1.80 per carton.

There are far more important things to comprehend than the price of milk. “What’s it like to not be able to afford private healthcare?” And “what is it really like to live in poverty?”, for example.

Once this striking but undeniable disconnect is acknowledged, it clearly highlights that the current system is fundamentally flawed. But continuing to refer to them as “the ruling class” and “the elite” runs the risk of perpetuating a very dangerous semblance. Although the terms are often used in a derogatory sense, is there a possibility that using them also leads to some level of status affirmation?

I asked my good friend (I wish!) Noam Chomsky about this, explaining my concern that using nouns such as “elite” and “ruling class” may become self-determining. Noam kindly replied, explaining that he uses the terms freely and doesn’t see a problem. But it gnawed at me before I contacted him and continues to nibble, despite my unwavering conviction that he knows a great deal more about it than I.

If Anita and Alan the aliens took their spaceship out for a Sunday spin, and looked down upon the Earth they would clearly see a colossal disfunction in the ruling structure. I believe, and imagine that Anita and Alan would agree, that for societies to be governed effectively, the governing body (or bodies) needs to be genuinely diverse. This will undoubtedly bring a richness of opinion, developed from a broad spectrum of understanding. Ultimately it would ensure that governance was based on reality, not determined by a narrow set of ill suited ideologies.

Therefore, I believe that terms such as the “elite” and “ruling class” are misleading misnomers. They are classifications for a minor section of society. But, perhaps rather cleverly, they also falsely convey that this minority section of society is superior, and therefore should be in charge.

I looked up “ruling class” in my thesaurus, here are some examples:

• High born
• Better sort
• Upper class
• Good breeding

And then I looked up the definition of “elite”.

Elite: /eɪˈliːt,ɪˈliːt/ noun: a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.

Language is a powerful tool, and words often have double meanings. By referring to a group as the ruling class, we run the risk of being passively lulled into accepting that they should be in charge.

Written in 2017

(And why I think that Theresa May is quite liberal…for a Tory. You see, a bit of balance!) Last one, and then I’ll go back to my default position of not posting on Facebook!

It’s not much of a secret, but I’ll be voting for Jeremy Corbyn in tomorrow’s General Election. In fact, I’ve already voted by post, because I’m in Lisbon now. So, no use trying to change my mind.

There are many reasons why, but the overriding fact (and real facts are so very hard to come by) is that I feel far more morally attuned to what he and Labour is trying to achieve than I do the Conservatives.

I would rather have someone who is genuinely trying to make the world a more peaceful place — and more peaceful will naturally mean more secure. Rather than the word ‘security’ being used in a highly aggressive way, in much the same way as ‘defence’ is. Which, when you think about it a bit, often means ‘attack’.

He also wants to improve education, help the NHS, build more houses and generally make things better for more people. And I believe that he genuinely wants to do this because he has been saying this for years. At rallies, conferences and town hall meetings.

Theresa May is not evil (such an unhelpful word, when you really think about it), in fact she’s quite liberal for a Tory. But a Tory she is, and is therefore beholden more to the Right than the Left, which means all of the things that we know that means. Profits before people, more money to the fat cats, more curtailing to newspaper owners that don’t pay tax because they support the Conservatives, more NHS cuts, more Mental Health cuts, more untruths about there being no money (there is, the banks were bailed out for billions and billions and most voted in favour) etc etc etc.

Also, Theresa May and the Conservatives have run a disastrous campaign. Strong and Stable was the mantra, and it has been absolutely the opposite. Losing such a massive lead (probably) has been catastrophic, so much so that Defence Secretary Michael Farron may have subtly thrown his hat in the ring to succeed May should we get a hung parliament. Because if that happens, Theresa May’s position will be untenable.

But the change in mood isn’t all May and her strategist’s fault. Because of election rules we are starting to see and hear more of Corbyn first hand. And people realise that the picture painted of him has, at best, been highly misleading. We expect this from the right-wing rags, but others (The Guardian for one) have been at it too. Let’s not try and deny that, there seems to be plenty of evidence to support this claim.

And right now, Britain and the world really doesn’t need Conservatism, or any more Right Wing Leadership. It needs something more inspiring, more liberal, more honest, and with greater integrity. We haven’t had this for a long time. Blair and New Labour quickly became Tory light and shifted everything to the right, which is a key reason why there was this huge amount of infighting when Corbyn became leader. You could argue that he was taking Labour back towards the left, and there were a lot of MPs entrenched in the party who didn’t like this one little bit.

Imagine what a signal having Jeremy Corbyn as leader will send to the likes of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

And Corbyn being portrayed as weak and unable to hold his own in negotiations is utterly incorrect. They guy has been hammered by the opposition, the media, and by a large section of his own party…and he’s still standing. In fact, he’s may be in with a shout of being Prime Minister. That seems strong and resilient to me. Far more than Theresa May, who has been increasingly portrayed as weak and wobbly because of mistakes during the General Election campaign. Anyway, this idea that Brexit (still hate that term) will involve the British Prime Minister and Verhofstadt facing each other across a table is completely misleading. Watch an episode of Yes Minister, or The Thick of It if you want to get a better idea of how this all really works.

And the Coalition of Chaos idea is a bit disingenuous too, if you dig below the surface, all parties are a chaotic collection of unique characters with differing ideas, priorities and beliefs. The only reason some of them toe the line is that they are career politicians who want to climb the career ladder, and will try and do so by backing who they think is likely to be the Prime Minister for the longest period of time.

Oh, and the terrorism thing. Well, let’s take the IRA ceasefire for example. How was that achieved? By talking and negotiating. And for that to happen you need to meet with people. And some of those people might have done very bad things. Don’t believe what The Daily Mail, Express and Sun tell you, or watch the videos on their websites that have been edited a bit. Find the full interview, or speech on You Tube and listen. Incidentally, Britain was a far more dangerous place to live in when the IRA where fully active, and yet we are led to believe that now things are much worse. Yes, recent events have been horrendous, but also highly unusual. And quite likely that they have happened to try and disrupt or have some other sort of impact on the General Election.

Jeremy Corbyn isn’t perfect, no politician is, but I believe that he genuinely wants to make Britain and the world a better place for more people. I don’t agree with all his polices or approaches, but that is why we have a democracy and a Parliament and a House of Lords. To put the brakes on, to debate, to consider. But I would really like to see what will happen with a more Liberal leader for a while. How bad could it really get? If he does turn out to be a terrorist sympathiser, Trotskyist nut case then there would quickly be outcry and a vote of no confidence. But I really don’t think that will happen. I think most of us will be pleasantly surprised, and the envy of much of the Western World.

PS — I trust Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders, and they support Corbyn too.

PPS — whatever you do, make sure you vote. Not voting is pretty awful. You do have the right to have your say, and it does matter.

Their journey had been a perilous one, and many humans had been forced to stop along the way, often collapsing from hunger or exhaustion following months of horrendous hardship. Yet many more had continued, determined to escape the atrocities that lay behind them.

The humans had begun to reach the shores of Calais on a cold, wet January morning. The conflict had escalated on 24th December that year, because the new regime knew that the West would be celebrating Christmas, and so bad news stories would be easier to hide. It had taken the humans more than three weeks to cross the land. The first to arrive was a young couple and their two children. The man and the woman were teachers, their two children seven and eight years old. Five years ago they had built a school, and had taught more than two hundred children. But their curriculum had been deemed blasphemous by the new regime, punishable by rape, torture and death. So they had fled for their lives.

They were the first to arrive, many, many more humans followed. Thousands upon thousands.

And they gathered, and waited. And despite their hunger, and their exhaustion and their sorrow and their fear, they waited with pride and with dignity. Some sat because they could no longer stand. But many stood, looking out across the sea, dreaming of ways to get across and put more distance between themselves and their oppressors. Some considered building rafts, but they had all heard those stories. Rumours had begun to spread about the army being called in to ‘disperse the crowds,’ as though this were some form of illegal protest. But these humans didn’t even want to be here. They wanted to return to their homes, but they could not.

And so they stood. And their hunger, and their fear, and their exhaustion and their sorrow grew. And the icy rain began to pour.

Then, on the horizon, a single boat appeared. It was a small fishing boat, and it was heading straight towards the crowded shore. Many of the humans spotted it as they gazed out to sea, but thought little of it because their minds were elsewhere. And then another appeared, and another, and another. Ten in all, some were larger and easier to see as they sailed closer. The first boat arrived, the skipper was a teacher as it happened, she taught languages. She picked up a megaphone and addressed the crowd.

“Friends, we are here to help you. We will take you across the sea to where there is food and shelter. But you must be patient, please do not run or people will be hurt or drown. Please organise yourselves into groups along the shores and form lines. Please keep families together, do not put women and children first. It is much more important that you stay together. We will leave no man, woman or child behind. We will keep going for as long as it takes us.”

“My friend” replied the teacher, we cannot thank you enough for your kindness and we will do as you say. But it will take you months to transport us all in your ten boats.”

The skipper smiled, and the teacher looked beyond her and he saw them. Boats, hundreds upon hundreds of boats.

From the author: I originally had more to add to this story, but when I wrote that final line it felt as though it may in fact be a good place to stop. What do you think? This is a first draft, and I’m sure that I’ll go back and tweak it, but I quite like the idea of ‘one-take!’

We’ve all had thoughts that just pop into our heads that we may not like, dark thoughts, scary thoughts, offensive thoughts… the list goes on and on. Some lucky people have learned not to be ashamed of these thoughts, not to always act upon them, to see them for what they are. But most of us have not, and that can be very destructive. Good news, though, I believe that there is hope for us all.

Our brains have had a lot of catching up to do. Relatively speaking it wasn’t all that long ago that we were strolling around in small groups, picking fruit from trees when we were lucky enough to find it, sleeping in caves and wondering if that noise in the night was something coming to eat us. Then our brains mutated, and here we are building skyscrapers, driving cars and launching rockets into space. So, then, it is little surprise that our brains are having a tough time of it, and often struggle to make sense of the situations that we find ourselves in.

Undoubtedly, much of our brain’s messaging is steeped in humanities past, where the things we were most worried about was food, safety, and reproduction, all on a very basic level. When you really think about it, the themes haven’t changed all that much, but the context most certainly has. Advertisers know this, as does the media and governments, only too well. But if each of us can understand this too, it can really help us to see the thoughts that makes us most ashamed, or guilty, or anxious as just thoughts that are pre-programmed in the computers of our brain. You can call this instinct if you like.

IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.

Binge eating is a common challenge for people, often leading to obesity, depression, illness and worst of all, guilt. Guilt is horrendous when you think about it, feeling bad about a thought or feeling. Some helpful people will tell you that you can control your feelings, but that isn’t true. It is possible to control your actions, but it can be very very very difficult, and often requires a great deal of help. Sadly the things we see on TV and in the papers, magazines and self help books are the stories are about those fortunate people who have controlled or overcome this, that or the other. But here’s the rub, they’ve done so because their unique brain has enabled them to. They are very lucky, not special.

Binge eating is no surprise when seen in the context of our ancestors. You’re cold, you’re hungry, you’re exhausted and you don’t know when the next meal will come from for your small group. Then, up ahead you see a tree covered in that lovely orange fruit, and so you all gorge yourself because your brain knows that when it sees food it needs to eat as much as possible of it. So it is not inconceivable to think that, for some, that message remains. There are of course many other reasons for binge eating, but they probably relate to that trinity in some way, food, reproduction and safety.

Here’s another one, racism. Tread carefully here Andrew. Studies clearly show that our brain likes things that are the same, there is a dopamine release from familiarity. This is probably mostly to do with safety, something different can be dangerous and scary, something familiar will probably be friendly. Maybe it will share its food with us or, if we’re lucky, have sex with us. When our cat sees a new person she legs it. Is she racist, unlikely, because she likes some people. Her brain is just sending her messages to protect herself because she is scared of something that is different. But prejudice is certainly one aspect of brain messaging that I firmly believe we can, and should recognise and change. Remember, just because you think something doesn’t mean that you have to be it. And now, fortunately, it is clear that just because someone is different from us that isn’t a bad thing. Often it is a very good thing, Admittedly, and for various reasons such as our social conditioning, some of us need to work harder to reach this conclusion we are all capable of coming to that conclusion. It can come as a result of challenging our programming, but for some of us our programmers are more robust than others.

It might be a lot easier if we could all openly admit that we are prejudiced in some way. Prejudice is everywhere, your are prejudiced, I am prejudiced, let’s accept that and seek to learn, and help each other not to be. If I attack or abuse someone simply for being different, I should be punished by the law. But if I have a prejudiced feeling and am brave enough to confront it and admit it, help me to overcome it, don’t attack me for having it.

IT’S NOT MY FAULT.

So, the next time a thought comes into your brain that you don’t like, try and remember that it is just a computer sending you a message, it is nothing to be ashamed of. If it is particularly bad, I’d suggest seeking help, because there will always be places that help with that sort of thing. If it isn’t illegal but is still difficult for you, I would suggest accepting it, owning it and then seeing if you can find out more about it. Sometimes something as simple as telling someone else you trust (“Oh my God, I have that thought too sometimes, I thought that it was just me”), or writing it down can be a really helpful start. Therapy can be vitally important here, and so can self-education. Psychology Today can be really helpful, and various books about Psychology and the brain can be found at your local library. It’s probably best to avoid Mumsnet and Facebook for this kind of thing.

Remember, you are amazing, but that squidgy lump in your head has been catapulted into a world that can be really scary. However with some responsibility and effort you can begin to help each other to work it out.

Forget space*, your brain is the most important undiscovered frontier.

* Don’t actually forget space.

Further reading for the curious, definitely not an exhaustive list:

• The Brain By David Eagleman | Used | 9781782116615 | World of Books
• The Incredible Teenage Brain By Bettina Hohnen | New | 9781785925573 | World of Books
• Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
• Incognito By David Eagleman | Used | 9781782112464 | World of Books

Loach rightly pulls no punches in highlighting massive issues: systemic failures, austerity, food shortages and unemployment. Truly awful things that are responsible for killing good people. It’s murder a few steps removed.

But what also resonated with me where some subtler points. A white man from Newcastle’s friendship with his younger black neighbour, and the relationship that develops between him and a single mother from London whom he meets at the Job Centre.

Fear, suspicion and disunity are powerful forces, and if we fear the person who lives at number 7 or number 9 because we are told to, then we are likely to retreat into our shells, our televisions, our newspapers and the Internet which often drive further division.

But if we are friends with the person or family at number 7 then we can help them. And in turn they are more likely to help us. And if the person at number 7 is friends with the person at number 8 the same thing can happen.

Imagine if the people at number 7, 8, 9 and 10 all become friends. They might have a chat in the street on a Saturday morning, and the lady at number 8 invites them all to dinner on Wednesday evening. She cooks a giant Masala, which the man who lives on his own at number 10 absolutely loves. So she offers to show him how to make one himself using ingredients that cost less than half the price of the takeaways that he’s become used to buying because he fell out of love with cooking after his wife died last year.

And he hears that the lock is broken on the back door of the family who live at number 7 which they can’t afford to get fixed, and offers to help because he’s quite good at that sort of thing. And the single Mum at number 9, who has been quiet up until now starts to talk about how worried she is about her son who has become increasingly withdrawn over the last few months.

At the end of the evening they all agree to do the same thing again next week, because they’ve all really enjoyed it.The man at number 10 surprises himself by offering to host if the lady at number 8 will help him do the cooking. And the couple who live at number 9 ask if they can invite the elderly lady who lives alone at number 11.

And so it goes.

And so it grows.

A few months later, 20 neighbours decide to have a barbecue — but not in a back garden, in the street. 20 quickly grows to 30 as some other neighbours come over to see what is going on and are invited to stay.

A bit later on someone mentions that the local library is at risk of being shut down, and they start to wonder what they could do about it. The lady at number 22 has been involved in a campaign like this when she lived in Leeds and has some ideas. Her girlfriend is a designer so maybe she could make some posters once they all decide what they should put on them. As they’re talking, some of the neighbours smile as they notice that the girl at number 14 is holding hands with boy at number 9.

We won’t stop being a transient society, but a transient society does not need to be an insular one.

I’m not sure about conspiracies. I’m not sure if governments develop strategies that promote hate and fear because it fits their aims. That is a question for another time. And perhaps not something that I can do very much about.

I’m not sure about the pros and cons of globalisation, and perhaps it’s not something I can do much about at the moment either. But if I spend all of my time worrying and talking about that, I might forget to think about the things that I can do something about.

What I do know is that with unity comes strength. And if people unite, they can achieve great things. They may not be able to stop an unnecessary war, or prevent climate change. But they could get the street light’s fixed, or apply for a small bit of funding to buy some trees to plant, or save their local library.

And that’s a good start.

Many more people are beginning to accept that it’s already far too late to reverse climate change. Indeed, what does ‘reverse’ actually mean in this context? In the past decade alone, 160 species have been declared extinct, and the stark evidence shows us that humanity is incapable of making the necessary changes that will avoid the impending climate catastrophe. And yet there is good reason to keep fighting for the cause.

In the main, we humans love trying to stay positive. We are engineered to seek the silver lining, and in fact often scorn those that don’t look on the bright side. As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast…”, hope is attractive and it feels good. What is the alternative to hope? Sorrow, depression, surrender…hopelessness. Unfortunately though, in the case of the environment, it’s the hope that will ultimately kill us.

There is still an innate faith in far too many humans that things will turn out for the best. Whether that is because we believe that a god or gods will somehow save us, or that this is all a god’s plan and that Armageddon of one kind or another will take the deserving to a higher place. Or confidence that political leaders will do what is necessary, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Or perhaps a childlike view of the world built around the happily ever after ending of the majority of stories. For one reason or another, most of us cannot or will not actually believe that humanity will be wiped out, and that our Earth will become a barren dustbowl spinning lifelessly in the vastness of space.

And in many ways, this isn’t our fault. Most animals generally trundle along in the same way for millennia. Sure, we see the odd glimpse of advancement. A bird that has learned to use a stick to extract some ants from a tree, for example. Or something unique and wonderful such as the behaviours seen in My Octopus Teacher. But in the main, animals don’t deviate from their programming — for that is what it is — very much at all. However, something happened to the human brain that made us climb down from the trees, leave the forest, forge tools, farm crops, build homes and ultimately launch rockets into space. Whilst at the same time killing ourselves and a great deal of what we shared the planet with. It is this mutation of our brains that makes humanity so amazing, but ironically it is that mutation which will wipe us out. The unstoppable drive to advance, to explore, to progress, to develop by definition means that ultimately we will run out of space, of food, of materials and of fuel. And as any astronomer will tell you in relation to stars, whatever burns twice as bright will burn for half as long.

It is very hard to be a human with a conscience at the moment. We live in an age where we have the instruments, the lexicon and the undeniable evidence that our behaviours have caused, and are continuing to cause enormous damage to the planet. And yet we are trapped in lives so complex, that the sacrifices that would be needed to make enough of a difference to save our planet are nearly impossible. We are trying so hard to find solutions that will enable business as usual, and in doing so we are denying the reality that the only way to make the changes that are needed is to stop buying things, stop stop worrying more about sports results than the environment, stop reproducing at anywhere near the same level, and stop driving and flying. And the problem is, if we did stop all of that, economies would crash, people would starve and it would be an armageddon in its own right.

My view is simply this, within the next two hundred years, there will be a series of global catastrophes. Exactly what I don’t know, but take your pick from a deadly pandemic, huge wars for resources, mass starvation as a result of crop failures and ocean acidification, and flooding on an immense scale as a result of a failure to reverse the melting of the Arctic sea ice. The human population will be reduced from 10 billion or more, to less than one billion. It will be a time of sorrow, of grief, of horror and of regret.

Unfortunately, it’s all rather hopeless. But given the current trajectory, there is no other possible outcome. And yet, I do not see this as a reason to give up the fight. Because although the Earth will be much changed, life will endure to some extent. Each species that we fight to save now means that more may survive than if we didn’t try. And each genuinely sustainable technological advancement and positive behaviour change that we learn now will mean a better life for those humans and other species that do remain.

Life on Earth will never be the same again, but humanity 5.0 has no god-given right to continue in its current form. It has indeed burned extremely brightly, but sadly at such great cost. Our only hope is that after the cataclysm, the entirety of humanity 6.0 realises that the most important thing that we can ever do is live in harmony with nature, and treat the Earth as our most precious gift.

Of course, there were those who already knew this, but nowhere near enough people listened, or were willing or able to really do something about it.

Some day the earth will weep, she will beg for her life, she will cry with tears of blood. You will make a choice, if you will help her or let her die, and when she dies, you too will die.

Attributed to John Hollow Horn, Oglala Laakota, 1932.

Yes, Loach pulls no punches in highlighting massive issues: systemic failures, austerity, food shortages and unemployment. Truly awful things that are responsible for killing good people. It’s murder a few steps removed.

What really struck me where some subtler points. A white man from Newcastle’s friendship with his younger black neighbour, and the relationship that develops between him and a single mother from London who he meets at the Job Centre.

Fear, suspicion and disunity are powerful forces, and if we fear the person who lives at number 7 or number 9 because we are told to, then we are likely to retreat into our shells, our televisions, our newspapers and the Internet which often drive further division.

But if we are friends with the person or family at number 7 then we can help them. And in turn they are more likely to help us. And if the person at number 7 is friends with the person at number 8 the same thing can happen.

Imagine if the people at number 7, 8, 9 and 10 all become friends. They might have a chat in the street on a Saturday morning, and the lady at number 8 invites them all to dinner on Wednesday evening. She cooks a giant Masala, which the man who lives on his own at number 10 absolutely loves. So she offers to show him how to make one himself using ingredients that cost less than half the price of the takeaways that he’s become used to buying because he fell out of love with cooking after his wife died last year.

And he hears that the lock is broken on the back door of the family who live at number 7 which they can’t afford to get fixed, and offers to help because he’s quite good at that sort of thing. And the single Mum at number 9, who has been quiet up until now starts to talk about how worried she is about her son who has become increasingly withdrawn over the last few months.

At the end of the evening they all agree to do the same thing again next week, because they’ve all really enjoyed it.The man at number 10 surprises himself by offering to host if the lady at number 8 will help him do the cooking. And the couple who live at number 9 ask if they can invite the elderly lady who lives alone at number 11.

And so it goes.

And so it grows.

A few months later, 20 neighbours decide to have a barbecue — but not in a back garden, in the street. 20 quickly grows to 30 as some other neighbours come over to see what is going on and are invited to stay.

A bit later on someone mentions that the local library is at risk of being shut down, and they start to wonder what they could do about it. The lady at number 22 has been involved in a campaign like this when she lived in Leeds and has some ideas. Her girlfriend is a designer so maybe she could make some posters once they all decide what they should put on them. As they’re talking, some of the neighbours smile as they notice that the girl at number 14 is holding hands with boy at number 9.

We won’t stop being a transient society, but a transient society does not need to be an insular one.

I’m not sure about conspiracies. I’m not sure if governments develop strategies that promote hate and fear because it fits their aims. That is a question for another time. And perhaps not something that I can do very much about.

I’m not sure about the pros and cons of globalisation, and perhaps it’s not something I can do much about at the moment either. But if I spend all of my time worrying and talking about that, I might forget to think about the things that I can do something about.

What I do know is that with unity comes strength. And if people unite, they can achieve great things. They may not be able to stop an unnecessary war, or prevent climate change. But they could get the street light’s fixed, or apply for a small bit of funding to buy some trees to plant, or save their local library.

And that’s a good start.