World peace or ideological purity: pick one

We are not concerned with feeding, clothing, and sheltering man but engrossed in a particular system which will guarantee food, clothing and shelter for all. The extreme left or the right are wrangling over a formula that will assure man's security; so they are not concerned with man's happiness, but with which formula will guarantee him happiness. J Krishnamurti

The allure of a system or ideology is understandable. It gives us a sense of security; it's something bigger than us with which we can identify, and over which we can bond. But the downsides are baleful and inevitable: no formula can adapt readily and appropriately to every circumstance and, very often, formulas, algorithms and ideologies function as substitutes for intelligence, an excuse to build a hierarchy, or a means of enforcing conformity. 

Social Policy Bonds, right from the start, have been regarded with disdain by those on the left of the political spectrum. They aim to encourage people to solve social and environmental problems, but in the eyes of the ideologues, they fail at the first hurdle because they offer financial incentives to those who do so. Financial incentives equal money equals profit, and so, to the ideologically pure, they are suspect. This is, in my view, has tragic consequences. We need diverse, adaptive approaches to our complex social problems. Ideological purity should not even be a consideration, let alone the sole relevant criterion. 

We see the results, most spectacularly now, while war rages again in Europe, and the possibility of even worse disasters looms large. The ancient Greeks, and many since, have regarded bloody conflict as an inevitable attribute of humanity. I question that; the whole thrust of the Social Policy Bond idea is that we encourage diverse, adaptive approaches to problems that have no clear solution. This we are not doing. Who is currently charged with reducing conflict? An array of organisations ranging from the United Nations to well-meaning, hard-working non-government organisations, who try a wide range of initiatives such as trying to reduce arms shipments, or reporting on atrocities. The employees of such bodies are no doubt diligent and motivated by high ideals. But they are rewarded for their activity, not by results. This doesn't just limit the possibility of most of them making an above-average living; it also limits the resources that flow into their activities. Meanwhile, the financial and other incentives on offer to the very few who foment conflict are large and immediate. 

The results of this mismatch between what almost everybody wants - in this instance, world peace - and what is actually happening are devastating and threaten us all. I suggest that instead of, or in parallel with, current efforts to limit conflict, we issue Conlict Reduction Bonds, about which I have written here. It would be a tragedy for everyone if the delusions and insecurities of the ideologically committed stifle the possibility of new, successful approaches to human conflict.