I am intrigued by Melanie Sykes’ piece in today’s Guardian (20.11.21) about being diagnosed as autistic at 51. Greta Thunberg was diagnosed as a teenager. Ms Sykes calls autism “Life Affirming”. Greta claims it enables her to notice dangers ordinary minds do not notice.
So do I. But I am not world famous. I am not even a prominent broadcaster. But I do have an idea which is dismissed by normal minds as unlikely to have the effect I foresee.
If they are right, then it may be that if I submit myself to clinical examination, like Greta and Melanie Sykes, the diagnosis will be not autism, but that I suffer from a psychotic delusion.
But the consensus on COP26 appears to be that it did make some progress, but that it fell woefully short of what is needed to save the Ecosphere (the World) from climate breakdown. Is the threat not dire yet?
My idea, an unconditional basic income (UBI), is already gaining ground, but normal minds do not see any connection with the purpose of COP26 . Unless tied to the threat of overconsumption, the UBI risks unleashing more, not less CO2.
Unlike Greta and Melanie Sykes, I do not have a clinical diagnosis of autism, only an online test. But like Melanie, it does make sense of a number of events during my lifetime.
The unintentional ‘secret’ of the UBI is that it approaches the threat to the Ecosphere from a new direction. Conventional approaches assusme that once again, someone, somewhere will invent a brilliant new idea which will allow ‘business as usual’ to go on for another decade or so. They might be right, but just in case no one does, the UBI, , combined with eco-taxes ill allow a new ‘Buddhist’ type mind set to develop.
Am I really suffering from a delusion? Am I really alone in thinking a UBI and eco-taxes ought at least to be tried?