It pays to occasionally ask, "what has happened up until this point?" I'm not really one to dwell on the past, though I do believe not heeding historical lessons is all too common in society today. And I am not really talking today about in depth analysis of historical episodes. What I am interested in this week is the way that people want to rush things.
It seems to be human nature to forever want more sooner, at least in our western society, and we are often critical of situations that are not delivering on a promise, even though the promise was likely meant as a long term commitment to continue to grow towards an ideal. This all reads a little abstract, so let me use two examples that I have been considering this week.
I am currently in Indonesia. The massive archipelago has thousands of diverse cultures, languages and perspectives that have developed over millennia. Strong Buddhist and Animist roots, layered with Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, on top of local customs that tie people closely to family and land. Each region likely has a significantly different flavour of life for its families and each family likely subtly different still. Yet it was only 1945 that Indonesia decided to proclaim independance and become a nation, saying to all those regions and families, we want you to identify yourself as Indonesian. Australia had been a federation for only 44 years at that time. Australia is now 117 years old and Indonesia is 73 years old. Both are still young compared to nations like the US and those of Europe. In many ways Indonesia is probably where Australia was in the 1970s. I see infrastructure requiring work, I see government agencies that have question marks over them, and I see people that are accepting of the situation. People that appear, in general, OK with their way of life. It does the developed world no good to look at a developing country through the lens of its current circumstances. Yes many Indonesians now have access to the internet, but what does that mean to them in terms of feeding their families when their real market is those in their local vicinity - global means nothing to people still cooking over fire every day. The big ideals of grown up nations are a folly to impose on impetuous teenagers - they will only rail against them and try to find their own path. In this country, about to go to another election, with the majority of population identifying as Muslim, it is easy to say from the outside that if this child is not kept in line we may not like the adult it becomes. The reality on the inside however is that people do their best, and whilst identifying with a faith (because it is not an option to choose no faith), there appears to be a richness to their perspective on their country that is optimistic for the future. When Australia was 73 years old, I expect you would have seen a predominantly conservative christian population going through some social upheavals (vis Gough Whitlam) - how different is it now? What will Indonesia grow into? It takes time and support and investment from the developed world to ensure that nations grow for their people, and that is what a nation is about - building a vision and way of life for their people.
My other example comes from my current course in One Health. Much time, energy and money has been spent on writing about what One Health is, how it works, how it is dysfunctional or not living up to expectations. People want to rush its growth, saying things like it had its roots in ancient Greece or Rome or in the 1800s, of the mid 1900s or the 1980s, but the reality is that was just previous generations verbalising the kernel of an idea. The actual decision to bear this child only came in 2004, making the concept really only 14 years old. Much is said about how it seems to be an agenda fostered by veterinarians and not really adopted by medical professionals - isn't this often the way with children - one parent is important in the earlier years, whilst the other parent goes on fighting the fires of everyday life, too exhausted to invest time in the child. One parent sees the potential in the child, the other is irritated by it, whilst still recognising that it has promise, often begrudgingly, because they wished they had the same opportunities that child is going to have. Uncles and aunties (NGOs and governments) also want to see OH as a single tree that will shade the world and be all things to all people. The reality is probably that One Health is actually many, that is to say, that there are many forms of one health that should be grown in different jurisdictions with context specific ideals and skills and responses. Being critical of an idea that is so young and has been touted to be an all encompassing saviour serves no one in the long term, though academics and governance bodies seem to like to battle things out as to how One Health should be. I think it is too soon to write the biography of One Health - what 14 year old has a biography written for them. Like Indonesia, One Health will grow into what it needs to be at the right level of society, which perhaps is local, or regional, but I doubt that it will be national (despite Rwanda and Uganda's efforts) or global.
In nature, when plants grow too quick they often lack resilience. Similarly, forcing growth in animals leads to pathology of joints and bones. I suspect that any idea that is forced to grow too quickly may well snap as well. Allow things to grow in their own time, enjoy the growing phase, support them where they needs support, buffer them from winds if need be, but don't force them.
