Morally untenable

re: "Not child's play" (BP, PostBag, October 25)

Dear editor,

Unfortunately, in his efforts to defend the indefensible, Vint Chavala falls into a common corruption of those whose position is intellectually and morally untenable. He has either not read Yuval Noah Harari's excellent books, merely copying what others have said about them, or he has failed to understand what Harari says, or he has committed a more serious moral and intellectual sin.

In Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Harari does indeed write the first two quotes Mr. Chavala attributes to him. Namely, that "The voter knows best," and "the customer is always right" (Harper, 2015, page 392). However, contrary to Mr. Chavala's version, these groups of words are not a single quotation, but occur in two separate sentences in a discussion in which Mr. Harari is showing the poverty of those and other pious platitudes apparently beloved by Mr Chavala. In the context, Harari is arguing that those sorts of simplistic slogans quoted so approvingly are not only false, but are dangerous for politics and morality.  Mr Chavala is certainly right that Harari is a thinker well worth reading for the solidly supported insights he gives us into the human condition these past 70,000 years and more, but those insights are the opposite to the lessons that Mr Chavala appears to have learned from Harari's books.  Such sloppy quotation is careless. Such misrepresentation is dishonest.

In none of his three rightly famous books does Harari write the other words Mr. Chavala "quotes" him as saying, although other writers do say that Harari suggests such views. Nowhere in the three books referred to does Harari say either: "The more people believe in free will, the easier it is to manipulate them," or "You can't live in the past, and you can't live in the future; you can only live in the present." This confirms the suspicion that Mr Chavala got his ideas about Harari not from Harari but from hearsay accounts of Harari — a dangerously reckless strategy not only in academic situations, but one frowned upon in courts of law and elsewhere.

Harari does indeed make some very pointed comments about free will and where we can live in history, far more damning comments, in fact, than Mr Chavala's hearsays suggest. Mr Chavala and others who would like to expand their understanding of what it is to be human might find it more profitable to actually read Harari himself in full. I strongly recommend all three of Harari's justly famous works, starting with the brilliant Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

I suspect that the intelligent and well-read men and women of Future Forward, including secretary-general Piyabutr Seangkanokkul and spokesperson Pannika Wanich, have indeed read Harari. But if they have not yet had that joy, I'm sure that they would be perfectly able to understand what the historian does in fact say about the human condition both as evolved individuals and social animals.

I was reminded on reading Mr Chavala's misunderstanding of Harari of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's recent recommendation to read Orwell's fairy tale Animal Farm, which allegory certainly has much to say that is relevant to Thai politics, but nothing that any reader who understands it could find anything but a condemnation of the last five years of abusive government based on the sorts of delusions that Harari warns us against.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 26, 2019, under the title "Morally untenable" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1780189/morally-untenable
  

'Lesser bad' still bad

re: "Faulty comparison" (BP, PostBag, October 23, 2019)

Dear editor,

Thank you Whale ("Faulty comparison", PostBag, October 23) for the thoughtful response to my letter on the foundational role of a free media, but a couple of points left me confused.

First, after explicitly agreeing with me that "free media may be essential" to a democracy and any other society that aspires to good morals, you seem to disagree with regard to both Thailand and Australia.

It is certainly true that Australia's prime minister says that he "supports the free press," but it is less obvious that he does in fact support the free press. Just because someone says they support X does not in fact mean that they support X. The evidence for or against the claimed support is their acts, including the laws that they support or have made, and his acts based on Australian law to stop the Australian press investigating and reporting on matters of national concern to Australians suggest grave lapses in my PM's support for a free press.

The same is more so for Thailand, where the wording of sections 34 through 36 of the latest permanent constitution of the Thai nation seems written with intent to enable easy suppression of both free speech for Thai citizens on Thai affairs and a free press investigating to report truths and honest opinion on those matters of Thai national concern. This leads to the strange situation where foreign media can be a better basis for informed opinion of worth on Thai affairs.

You also repeat a common failure of critical thinking. Merely because someone else is worse, even much worse, cannot justify a lesser bad. Yes, Myanmar and Cambodia are worse than Thailand when it comes to censoring the press to enforce ignorance of national affairs. China is even worse at censoring to impose ignorance of Chinese concerns on its citizens. But this is no reason to accept the lesser wrongs. Would you similarly argue that Mr X should be let off because he only committed one murder while Ms B committed ten?

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 24, 2019, under the title "'Lesser bad' still bad" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1778719/case-closed
  

Living gods v. dead texts

Re: Is God Skipping the Democratic Primary? (The New York Times, 2019, October 23)

Yes. Christians should be held to the moral standards that their religion teaches, and that means not the petty rules of ancient Israel, but the example of Christ's inclusiveness emphasizing the deeper moral reasons for any rule. This means, for example, that Christians must support loving relationships, not legalistic opposition to same-sex marriage.

Similarly, Buddhists must be held to the Buddha's wise teaching that authority, whether ancient, political, textual, traditional, or the Buddha's own words, can never trump critical thinking that might prove any previous insight to be wrong.

And the same for every other religion. Don't let religion  serve as a shelter for prejudice, for unreason, for the rejection of social and moral progress. Do not let the prejudiced, the unreasoning, those rejecting social and moral progress hide under the intolerant worship of dead texts that too often belie their founders' most profound insights into the spiritual and moral.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to the The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/opinion/democrats-2020-religion.html#commentsContainer&permid=103249063:103249063

  

Free media essential

re: "Australian papers censor front pages in press freedom campaign" (BP, October 21, 2019)

Dear editor,

Well done Aussie newspapers. A free media, ready, willing and able to publish deeply embarrassing truths about society, politics, political leaders, and leaders  of society is essential to a free, morally healthy society. Just look at Thailand over at least the past seven decades to see how corrupt, unequal and unjust, how sick, society and politics becomes when the media fails to honestly embarrass and heartily mock the fake pretensions of those who think themselves owed trust and esteem for no good reason except a title, a position, or inherited wealth.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 22, 2019, under the title "Free media essential" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1777414/lead-from-the-front
  

Knowing right

Re: "'Workers and consumers are the ultimate losers': Consumer advocates back press freedom campaign" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2019, October 22)

Free speech and a free press are both foundational to a healthy democracy. If people cannot seek and speak ugly truths about those who rule them, if citizens cannot mock and burst the pretensions of those who think themselves high and mighty, if some are denied the chance of an equal voice in forming not only their government, but the form of their society, its laws and institutions, then democracy is in danger of becoming a tyranny.

The lame cry of "national security" is too often a lie, and must also be subject to healthy skepticism and rejected unless sufficiently specific support is given to substantiate every such claim to impose ignorance by censoring the free investigation and reporting of national affairs. That something will piss of a communist dictatorship is not a national security reason to stifle the flow of information about the nation. That something will embarrass an official is not a national security issue, which appears to need a strict and transparent definition to prevent abuse. 

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The Sydney Morning Herald article.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/workers-and-consumers-are-the-ultimate-losers-consumer-advocates-back-press-freedom-campaign-20191021-p532s9.html#comments
  

The tyrant's threat to speech

  re: The Chinese Threat to American Speech (The New York Times, October 20, 2019)

To do anything less than demand respect for the right to free speech, not only for Americans, but every person on the planet, even if that free speech is used to deeply offend others, is to reject a founding principle of democracy and liberty, one hard won and in need of constant vigilance to protect it from attacks not only by the despotic communists, fascists, religious bigots and other zealous ideologues, but also too often by the well-intentioned who would appease those tyrants in the name of expediency, sales, or even seeming respect for other values. 

Free speech is fundamental not only to science and knowledge, to democracy and good governance, but to good morals.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to the The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/19/opinion/sunday/china-nba.html#commentsContainer&permid=103195123:103195123

  

Leftist collusion

re: "Somkid leads China trip" (BP, October 18, 2019)

Dear editor,

What's that? Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatusripitak is going to fraternize with the communists, including, no less,  "a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee"? What is the army chief going to say about this leftist collusion threatening Thailand's national security? What if Thailand's Deputy PM and the Chinese communist big wig go to the extreme of taking a photograph together?

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 20, 2019, under the title "Leftist collusion" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1776034/stop-the-arms-race
  

Fake honesty

Re: The most ruthlessly honest president of modern times: a thousand days of Trump

Trump is only honest in the sense that he blurts out whatever is in his mind. He is not honest in any sense that connects that word with speaking, seeking or respecting truth. The Trump base shares many of his ugly prejudices and dishonest lies, so hail him as honest in an impressive perversion of honesty.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to the Sydney Morning Herald.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/the-most-ruthlessly-honest-president-of-modern-times-a-thousand-days-of-trump-20191017-p531r7.html#comments
  

Sinister tirades

re: "Silly conspiracy theories fall flat with young folk" (BP, October 17, 2019) 

Dear editor,

Surasak Glahan is right that whilst such bizarre tirades strike sensible people as silly, they are also profoundly sinister. It is encouraging that many have laughed at the latest conspiracy theories as they deserve. But bad people, often sincerely believing their own incredible fantasies, have a long habit across history of first making up bizarre tales to divide society by demonizing those they irrationally fear before moving against those they have deceitfully demonized.

The Jewish high priests demonized Jesus as a political radical and religious heretic to justify having him executed (religion has ever been a powerful ally of bad men). White Americans demonized African Americans as sexual predators preying on innocent white girls to justify repressive segregation to keep them in their place. The Nazis demonized Jews, gays, Gypsies, communists and others as undermining good morals and the state to justify the Holocaust. Pol Pot demonized the educated to justify his mass murder. The US under McCarthy demonized alleged communists to justify his unAmerican assault on political opponents, academics and other patriotic Americans who disagreed with his perverted vision of American greatness. Mao demonized almost everyone to justify his policies that killed tens of millions of Chinese.

And Thai army politicians have a long history of demonizing patriotic Thai citizens who have a different vision of their nation as a strong, healthy democracy with a respected constitutional monarchy. Such bizarre conspiracies might be very silly, but they have divided Thai society, turning Thai against Thai, and led to the murders of thousands of good Thai men and women in defence of a faith-based ideology that blindly rejects reason, fact, honesty, and the other good morals that found democracy, which form of government section 2 of the Thai constitution explicitly defines Thailand as having.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 18, 2019, under the title "Sinister tirades" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1774594/sinister-tirades
  

Unjustifiable evil

re: "'Political warfare' worries veteran critic" (BP, October 16, 2019)

Dear editor,

No, Mr. Boonmee, the Thai army is not "obsessed with national security," although it has indeed "failed to encourage the public to share a common goal." The army appears obsessed, rather, with waving baseless flags of national security at anything that threatens to move the Thai nation forward, including the long overdue reforms set out in the policies of Future Forward, which are detailed enough to also rebut Mr. Boonmee's accusation that "it has yet to offer any detailed development plans."

Consistent with the fakery of the national security flag waving, Mr. Boonmee correctly points out that there is in reality no "national threat," except in the fevered imaginations that led to such  horrors as the indefensible torture and murder of thousands of Thais who were accused of having communist sympathies decades ago in the Red Drum murders and other atrocities. If by perverting the teachings of karma, the nationalistic religion known as Thai Buddhism in any way condoned then or now those murders of Thai citizens, then that is a morally repugnant stain on that religion. Religious devotion, however self-righteous, cannot justify evil. No more can blind loyalty to any other faith-based ideology, however right or left wing, that rejects reason and fact along with good morals.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 17, 2019, under the title "Unjustifiable evil" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1773799/unjustifiable-evil
  

Christianity Ordaining Trump

re: God Is Now Trump’s Co-Conspirator (The New York Times, 2019, October 15)

If your morals are founded on the despotic dictates of a Middle Eastern patriarch who set the standard in sexism, racism and zealous intolerance of reason, facts and good morals, then you have a serious moral problem.

And as the facts noted by Krugman show, as has long been known, less religious societies correlate strongly with higher morals reflected in less violence and other crimes, and greater respect for other persons.

In the 21st century, how can anyone take seriously the faith-based (a euphemism for absolute rejection of critical thinking) commands of a fake deity who amuses himself with commanding fathers to kill their own sons (Abraham) and commanding wholesale slaughter for consenting adults loving each other in unapproved ways? And who is, in the best tradition of the ancient Middle East, very tolerant of slavery and other evils? That is true moral corruption. That is what America should be greater than. 

_______________________________

The above comments were submitted as two by Felix Qui to the The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/trump-william-barr-speech.html#commentsContainer&permid=103108432:103108432

  

This can't be right

re: "Treading a fine line over China" (BP, Opinion, October 14, 2019)

Dear editor,

Did I read Veera Prateepchaikul right in "Treading a fine line over China" (BP, Opinion, October 14)? When he writes in a sneering tone of Future Forward's Thanatorn Juangroongruangkit's "obsession with democracy and freedom" did Veera seriously mean to suggest that a society might value too highly democracy and freedom? And in his eagerness to appease both the Chinese communists and Thailand's forces equally opposed to such good values, does Veera really mean that good people should not take a unwavering stand in defence of democracy and freedom?

Compromise is one thing, and Future Forward's reasonable leaders have in practice and principle always sought compromise. They have publicly committed to and have in their acts sought only reform that is done openly, transparently and in accord with the law as written.

Appeasement is a totally different thing, and as history shows, craven pusillanimity in the face of brutes only encourages bullies, communist and otherwise, to greater suppression of freedom and democracy, both of which demand unrelenting vigilance if they are to flourish.

Perhaps Veera should review section 2 of the Thai constitution, which, with neither compromise not appeasement, explicitly defines the Thai nation as having a democratic form of government.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 15, 2019, under the title "This can't be right" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1772134/horse-first-then-cart
  

Oppressive communists

re: "Apirat speech sends chill" (BP, Editorial, October 12, 2019)

Dear editor,

His speech railing against the evils of communism by Army chief Gen Apirat Kongsompong was a little confusing. It might have been the case in the 1960s and 70s that the Thai left had been deluded by the lies of the Chinese Communist Party, but those lies have long been exposed by the wholesome free speech that exists in democracies. It is known, although perhaps not by the benighted mainland Chinese swaddled in the gloom of communist censorship to protect their beloved ideology, that Mao's rule was marked by massive death and suffering, that tens of millions of Chinese starved to death because of inept agricultural and other policies driven by the leftist ideology of Mao and his brothers in arms. And then there were the communist witch hunts, the purges of heretics, blasphemers and suspected apostates against the monolithic rule of communism. More recently, it is known that the communists censor, with their far worse equivalents of Thailand's Computer Crimes Act, to keep the domestic Chinese audience in ignorance not only of the lives and acts of those who rule over them, but of such historical events as the Tien An Men Massacre of 1989.

Perhaps a refresher course in basic history might help. The facts are that the the patriotic citizens of Hong Kong are protesting against the despotic rule of the Chinese Communist Party. Let's state that more clearly: the Hong Kong protests are anti-communist; they are opposing leftist communism. Whatever Joshua Wong's politics might be, they are  not communist. It is the Chinese Communist Party ruling with leftist zealotry from Beijing that is communist. Nor is there any reason to think that Future Forward's Thanatorn is any way sympathetic to communist ideology. He is, on the contrary, very much a capitalist and is actively supporting the ideals of democracy, which directly contradict both the principles and the repressive methods of communism. It is hard to compass how anyone could seriously assert that Thanatorn or any other member of Future Forward is remotely aligned with the repressive, anti-democratic methods and aims of leftist communism.

Nor is it Thanatorn or Future Forward who are cosying up to the communists in Beijing by doing deals to buy their submarines and so on. It is not the good people of Future Forward who advocate communist-style suppression of free speech to keep the Thai citizens ignorant of important national affairs. It is not Thailand's pro-democracy advocates who want the Thai people trembling in fear before the state as mainland Chinese do before the oppressive communist state.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 13, 2019, under the title "Oppressive communists" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1770929/living-in-the-past
  

Perversion of justice

re: Stop cyber law abuses (BP, Editorial, October 11, 2019)

Unfortunately, since the bad people who thrive on false and distorted news, even outright lies, make up the law, having overthrown the several permanent constitutions to be able to do to so, it is optimistic to expect them to worry about justice or any other good morals. But it remains true that the Computer Crimes Act is morally corrupt law that rejects justice as a principle. Perhaps if more Thais voice their views on the fake and distorted perversion of justice that is the Computer Crimes Act they will be heard even by the dictators.

_______________________________

The above was submitted and originally posted as a quick comment on the Bangkok Post's Editorial, not a more considered letter to the editor by Felix Qui.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 12, 2019, under the title "Perversion of justice" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1770464/perversion-of-justice
  

Persons not souls

re: What Makes Us All Radically Equal (The New York Times, 2019, October 10)

The trouble with premising your respect for people on the existence of souls is that they don't exist, which puts everything built on their sand at imminent risk of collapse. Human history shows just how easily souls can be denied to others when demagoguery or the like find that convenient: it is not difficult to deny what lacks any substance.

A sturdier foundation for respect might be personhood, which can be defined, albeit with argument about exactly what does and does not count, and better still, can be measured objectively. No one can say what colour, size, shape or other measurable quality a soul might have, but the qualities of being a person, such as self awareness, are clearly defined, meaningful and measurable: most humans have more self awareness than chimpanzees and pigs, who in turn have more than your average lizard, prawn or rose. Personhood is also defined by, for example, having interests, goals, and values, which are again real, measurable qualities: your average human over age two has desires, plans for the future, and moral notions of fairness, some of which are shared to varying degrees by other species to which we are related.

Reality is a much sounder foundation for building respect than something fake, however alluring the fakery might dress itself up. All persons have the same inalienable rights in virtue of being persons. Souls are not needed to quality.

Clarifying reply

I should add that for each quality of personhood that bestows a right, you have it or you don't. If you have that quality, then the associated rights of being a person come with it absolutely.

_______________________________

The above comments were submitted as two by Felix Qui to the The New York Times article.

They are published there at 

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/opinion/frederick-douglass-detroit.html#commentsContainer&permid=103039500:103039500
  and
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/opinion/frederick-douglass-detroit.html#commentsContainer&permid=103039500:103039539

  

Risky Section 20?

re: "WiFi rule sparks call for change" (BP, October 10, 2019)

Dear editor,

Since section 20 of the Computer Crimes Act is highly inappropriate, must it not, therefore, be banned forthwith, and those inciting or enabling its use prosecuted for such inappropriate behaviour that threatens to undermine good public morals, since their inappropriate acts thereby pose a grave risk to national security?

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on MonthDate, 2019, under the title "Risky Section 20?" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1769604/risky-section-20-
  

Right to an opinion

re: "Just doing his job" (BP, PostBag, October 8, 2019)

Dear editor,

In his letter "Just doing his job"  (PostBag, October 8, 2019), Dusit Thammaraks gets a couple of things right and a couple wrong. It is wrong to write that the accused "would have to legally contest the allegations, and prove without doubt that they had no intention to break the law." On the contrary, innocence is presumed and the accuser must prove his claim of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Since good people might reasonably feel that there seems to be little basis for the accusation made by Maj Gen Burin Thongprapai, they cannot be wrong to criticize him "for filing a complaint with the police accusing 12 panelists at a Pattani forum on Sept 28 for distorting facts" to foment sedition. Under Thai law, the onus of proof, even for state officials, is on the accuser.

But Mr. Thammaraks is certainly right that "Human rights and freedom of speech do not go hand in hand with sedition!" However, neither is peacefully presenting a dissenting opinion about what just law should be equivalent to sedition. Democracy and the fundamental right to free speech do require that every law, including every section of the constitution, be open to discussion. The good morals that found democracy are premised on the presumption that all citizens have an equal right to a voice in forming not only their government, but the laws that regulate that government, their society and its form, and this moral imperative demands that all laws be up for discussion by the people. The twelve people who were on the panel are all Thai citizens.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 9, 2019, under the title "Right to an opinion" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1767999/right-to-an-opinion
  

NBA v. China v. Human values

re: N.B.A. Commissioner Commits to Free Speech as Chinese Companies Cut Ties (The New York Times, 2019, October 8)

China's religiously dogmatic insistence, echoing the Islamic and Christian persecution of heretics, apostates and blasphemers, that they officially "believe that any comments that challenge national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech," is premised on the idea that citizens are the slave property of the state, whose lives may be dictated to serve the purposes of others.

And that article of communist faith is, surprising none, a rejection of the underlying principle not only of democracy, but of good morals. Citizens, even Chinese citizens, are people with rights to a voice in their form of government, laws and society.

 There is often a cost to doing the right thing, since ethics requires considering the interests of others, all others, rather than selfishly pursuing your own or your group's.

The NBA is right to insist on the right not only of Americans but also of Chinese and all other human persons to freely hold and express opinions on any and all social and political issues.

_______________________________

The above comments were submitted as two by Felix Qui to the The New York Times article.

They are published there at 

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/sports/adam-silver-nba-china-hong-kong.html#commentsContainer&permid=102991362:102991362
   and
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/sports/adam-silver-nba-china-hong-kong.html#commentsContainer&permid=102991257:102991257

  

Just doing his job

re: "Piyabutr under fire over call to pull Isoc lawyer before panel" (BP, October 6, 2019)

Dear editor,

Officials paid by and representing the state should be called upon to explain themselves before parliament, especially when they have acted in ways that reasonable people will likely see as politically motivated. No organization should be exempt from parliamentary oversight, so Future Forward's  Mr Piyabutr, who chairs the House standing committee on laws, justice and human rights, is doing his job as a responsible member of Thailand's parliament.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 7, 2019, under the title "Just doing his job" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1766394/no-ones-surprised
  

Nature's reforms

re: " The girl who could just save the world " (BP, Opinion, October 5, 2019)

Dear editor,

Thank you Wasant Techawongtham for an enjoyably provocative read with the morning coffee in "The girl who could just save the world" (Bangkok Post, Opinion, October 5). But Wasant, we can agree that Ms Thunberg's message is important and still disagree with some of her claims, and certainly with some of the suggested solutions.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing, even without our contributions, that would likely have happened. But Ms Thunberg is right that the solid scientific evidence says that we humans are a major cause of current climate change, which is likely to accelerate irrespective of what we now do. To dispute this, you have to have better evidence than the consensus of experts in the area. The sincerely rabid deniers like Trump do not fit that description of informed dissenter. It does not, however, follow that we should opt for less economic growth. The poor of China and India have as much right to the lifestyle of Ms Thunberg as she enjoys in flitting around the world spreading her message of doom and gloom. We cannot in good conscience tell the poor of the third world to suffer their meagre sufficiency, such an ugly ideological excuse for gross inequality, so that those of us from the first world can carry on comfortably at the top of the pile.

Better solutions might be to charge enough in taxes to offset harms from production of cars, trips by car, BTS trips, plastic bags, planes, flights to environment conferences and the like. But again, we who have the luxury of arguing about Ms Thunberg's message inherited our relative affluence on the back of the past environmental misdeeds pushed onto others in polluted rivers, ravaged forests, and poisoned air, all conveniently externalized economic costs that neither our ancestors nor us paid a just price for. Now coming back to haunt us, these are the costs of our comfortable lifestyles as we sit, using my personal example, in a condo on Silom Road, typing on a computer while sipping the morning coffee enriched with cream, with the air conditioning humming silently to keep everything pleasantly cool. It is not fair to expect the less well off today to pay a higher price than we and our hard working ancestors did. This suggests that the rich world has a moral obligation to pay very substantial tax arrears (not charitable donations, but owed debts) to help bring the rest of the world up to the same high standard of living.

And we should also prepare for the coming global reforms enforced by nature — nature will not be susceptible to any coup by ignorant army generals who think they can thereby steal power, property and prestige for themselves merely by overthrowing the existing rule of law and system of government. Nature follows the rules of physics, and they do not care about any human story, however ancient or silly, told by despotic species to gild their grab for power.

It is perhaps also worth remembering a couple of other truths. First, non-existent persons are not in fact persons, so cannot have the rights of persons. Ms Thunberg is right that her generation of persons has been treated very badly by my generation and the previous few generations who, by the invisible hands that pull the levers of capitalism, made the world what it is today, but the unborn are precisely that: unborn, so not persons. Nonetheless, responsible parents today should perhaps choose not to breed new persons with a diminished future, which the sensible, morally informed women of Japan, South Korea, and even Thailand and elsewhere, now seem to be doing.

My final disagreement is that the world is not in need of saving, only the human species, along with the many other species we are in process of or have already made extinct, might be in need of that. As the Buddha wisely teaches, impermanence is a constant. The planet and life will carry on perfectly well whether we humans exist or not. Indeed, should it come about, many species have very good grounds for looking forward to our self-inflicted extinction. We mammals got our chance to accede to the throne when the dinosaurs were sent by nature into rapid oblivion. Who knows what species might next take the vacated seat?

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 6, 2019, under the title "Nature's reforms" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1765924/natures-reforms