With an election coming up here in Ireland, I’m still not entirely decided who I’ll vote for. My constituency is Cork East, so I have a good enough choice. My views tend to be slightly left of centre liberal with a strong secularist streak. I want a government that will invest in strong, effective public services and I’m ok with paying this out of USC if this can be achieved. I think we can have a top class education system here along with a health system we can be proud of. However, I believe that public services must be run efficiently. You can’t just throw money at the issue without challenging the underlying structures and systems (and recognising that huge private sector investment may be necessary to achieve this). I want separation of church and state. It’s high time we removed church involvement from public schooling. I’m also very much on the side of the people who want to see Article 8th and blasphemy laws removed from our constitution. Ireland should be open to all cultures and people, but our laws do not recognise this. On a local level, broadband had still not been sorted out in rural areas. This is incredible.

So here’s my thinking. 

Fianna Fail are a no. It’s the backwards conservative / back scratching party it always has been that still thinks the Catholic Church are great. Mícheál Martin might be one of the stronger leaders in a poor enough field, but his party base is still in denial. Oh, and did I mention they bankrupted the country? I’ll pass, thanks.

Sinn Fein are a definite no. Notwithstanding the local controversy with Sandra McLennan, they are ambiguous when it comes to justice and their economic policies are thoroughly Marxist. They suffer from a cult of personality regarding Gerry Adams and they are unapologetically populist. They’ll promise anything for a vote. It’s hard to separate them from the party they were during the troubles – a party of spin and lies, not to mention the occasional murder. They would be a disaster for the country.

Independents are a no. While independents are often earnest and hard working at a local level, they are not good for a stable government and they have little interest in wider issues of running a country. They are populist almost by definition. 

Labour: it’s complicated. Many of the policies align with my views. They are liberal and relatively responsible when it comes to government. They have taken difficult, unpopular stances which, to my mind, is not a bad thing. I think however that they suffer from a lack of leadership. They possibly should have taken stronger stances in government which is hurting them now. Sean Sherlock has not made much of an impact in this part of the county, so it’s been difficult to assess his record. I’ll probably vote for them, but exactly which preference, I’ve yet to decide.

Fine Gael: it’s complicated. They can claim a lot of credit for making deeply unpopular decisions which, nevertheless, pulled this country out of the enormous hole dug by the previous administration. They have also enacted policies that went against their natural base. They are ambiguous about Article 8, but I don’t think they’ll have much choice but to put it to a referendum in the next government. The local TD, David Stanton, is a hard worker and personable man. On balance, I may vote for them, but I’m unsure of preference.

Social Democrats. They are a new party formed from a disenfranchisement with current government direction. They are liberal and interested in maintaining a strong investment in public services. Their leader, Stephen Donnelly, is quite impressive and the local candidate Ken Curtin comes across as very sincere, very hard working, with a lot of integrity. I like the direction and I wish them well as an interesting new party in Irish politics. Worth a punt.

Renua: Are you kidding me? A backwards, pro-clerical, anti-choice, lock ’em up and throw away the key party. They seem to thrive on fear and loathing. Yuck.

Inevitably, the next government is likely to be a hotch potch of different groupings. The most stable mix would be FG/FF, but there’s a strong possibility we might see an FF/SF lead government too, which would be a great pity, but at least it would give us a chance to see how Sinn Fein perform when they have to make tough choices. Another, even worse outcome is an SF lead knesset of small parties and independents. Wouldn’t last to Christmas, but it could be fascinating if it were not for the fact that we would have to pay the price for it, however temporary. Personally I feel an FG/Lab/SD government would be the best in the circumstances, but I don’t see it happening.

Twitter was launched ten years ago.

Dolly the Sheep was cloned twenty years ago.

Rock legend Phil Lynott died 30 years ago.

U2 was formed 40 years ago.

England’s last World Cup win was 50 years ago.

The first person to say “fuck” on TV was Irish. That was 60 years ago.

Irish Nazi broadcaster Lord Haw Haw was executed 70 years ago.

Aer Lingus was founded 80 years ago.

An Irishwoman shot and injured Benito Mussolini 90 years ago.

Ernest Shackleton and Tom Crean rowed to South Georgia 100 years ago. 

Sounds familiar? 200 years ago we had a year without a summer.

William Shakespeare died 400 years ago.

The German Beer Purity Laws came into effect 500 years ago.

The Irish were busy fighting Scottish invaders 700 years ago.

King Cnut (don’t say this quickly while drinking German beers) became king of England 1000 years ago.

Italy beat Germany at an away match 2000 years ago. 

More 2016 anniversaries. 

Picture the scene. It’s 2813 AD and a school class is reviewing the history from the 21st Century. The teacher begins the class with this statement. “The 21st Century is an interesting period in time, mainly because we know so little about it. In many cases, all we can do is speculate”.

What? The 21st Century? The Information Age? The age where we can receive the answers we need at the touch of a button? Where we share almost everything about ourselves on Facebook? Where one hour of footage is uploaded to YouTube every second? Where vast records are stored on each one of us by shadowy intelligence agencies and Internet businesses across the planet? How could this be?

Nevertheless, in 800 years time, little of this will remain. We don’t need to conjure up a great catastrophe for this to happen. The pace of technological change alone could render the records of our lives impenetrable and impossible to discover.

The Dark Ages – a period stretching roughly from 500 AD to 800 AD, is so called because records of this time, in Western Europe at least, are few and far between. The Western Roman Empire was at an end. Migrating tribes roamed the continent and fought each other bitterly in search of a new homeland. Bubonic plague decimated the population. Scholarship disappeared, with the result that almost all Europeans alive could neither read nor write. There are very few accounts of life in Europe during this time.

Literacy and numeracy were reintroduced to Europe mainly via the Islamic World and ever so slowly, books were written and record keeping began again in earnest. The Renaissance saw a re-kindling of learning and with the advent of the printing press, a bright light was shone into the people and the events of the times. Over the intervening centuries, with ever greater literacy and technology, this light has dramatically increased. Now, at the height of this illuminated age, all this knowledge may disappear into thin air rather rapidly.

Paper is by no means a perfect way to keep records, but it has the relative advantages of clarity and durability. In their basic form, books in the 13th century were not much different from books in the 19th Century. With a bit of luck, they might have avoided being set on fire or being destroyed by an iconoclast, allowing trained historians to read them and interpret them with relation to other books from the time.

But all this could now stop because we are now moving away from paper as a primary means of storing information. Instead, our records have moved to electronic media. Computers, laser disks, hard drives and distributed private server farms (aka the Cloud), now hold much of the information produced each day. More and more data is encrypted, meaning that even if you had the technology to read the data, you might not have the keys required to decipher the information. Most private companies will eventually fail, and with them their vast storage capabilities may go dark. Furthermore, the information is electronic and magnetic in nature, meaning that it may not have the permanence of ink on paper. A few magnetic storms or simply the effects of loss of charge over time may put paid to most of our electronic records in a relatively short period. 

Historians of future centuries will have a big problem on their hands, should paper disappear entirely over the coming decades. Ironically, they may need to look towards less advanced societies or communities to find primarily records from the past. Luddite paper loving hold-outs or impoverished societies on the far side of the digital divide might provide the only keys to the goings on in our century.

Of course archaeologists will have a field day, given the amount of non recyclable trash available to them. We’re a filthy lot, so they won’t have too many problems figuring out how we lived, or what we wore, drove or ate. It’s just that there may not be any voices from that time, adding colour to this picture. In the total absence of available records, we literally become prehistoric, like ancient Celtic or Germanic tribes. 

Paper is not quite dead yet, so I expect we are a long way from total darkness, but one thing is virtually certain: much of what we are recording today – the vast billions and trillions of megabytes recorded each day – will eventually go missing. We are an information rich, yet record poor, society. If we ignore this issue, it will reverberate down the generations. 

Confirmation bias has to be one of the most pervasive – and shittiest – aspects of human nature. By definition, it’s our natural tendency to only search for information that conforms to our preconceptions. In other words, we are naturally disposed to seeing only what we want to see.

And it’s all around us. You don’t like someone? You’ll only see their bad points. You had a bad meal in a restaurant? The service will be bad too, and they left a stain on the tablecloth. The wrong party got into power? Look at the mess they created.

If you have a vested interest in anything it’s likely that the gales of confirmation bias will roar around you. If you’re selling or promoting something it’s likely you’ll jump with delight on information that could promote your business. You’ll jump with annoyance, though, on any statement to the contrary. The same goes for fossil fuels, quack autism cures, homeopathy, fortune telling, you name it.

I want to take the German refugee crisis as an example, because I’m currently stuck in a debate about it. Because of the devastation of Syria and Iraq, tens of thousands of refugees are arriving in Germany each week. A million people could come there in the coming months. This is undoubtedly going to put stress on everything: schools, housing, hospitals, social services and policing. It wouldn’t matter where the people came from or what their religion was: a million people arriving from anywhere would pose big problems to residents.

Many locals are less than happy. Listening to them I get the impression that the refugees are the worst people imaginable. A lot of the arguments hinge around stories of criminality or personal affronts. Sheep getting stolen, youths going to the toilet on doorsteps, local women being insulted as whores, that kind of thing. Terrible stuff indeed.

But here are a couple of things that make me pause.

First, are all the stories true? When hearing stories that we badly want to hear, our critical faculties often disappear. The statement itself is proof enough. Because it conforms with what we already believe, why be sceptical about it?

Second, what about the disconfirming stories? The stories of immigrants or refugees doing nothing of the sort? Of minding their own business? Of doing something nice for other people? You won’t hear many of these because nobody wants to talk about them. Nobody likes a good story ruined.

Third, in what way does a story like this extrapolate out to the wider community? You will find criminality everywhere and desperation may provoke additional anti-social behaviour amongst some people. Even still, lots of stories like this are unlikely to be indicative of a mass movement of people, hell-bent on exploiting their hosts.

Fourth, because these people are escaping a bad situation, doesn’t necessarily mean that the badness is coming with them. If they loved the awfulness of ISIS and government terrorism so much, then why are they leaving in such numbers?

Now, it’s quite possible that it’s me who is biased, that it’s me who is giving the refugees far too much credit and that I am not considering the genuine problems of local residents. Maybe I’ve become too leftie for my own good and it’s addled my brain. It could be. After all, I’m just as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone else. However my experience is that most people are basically decent. They are more interested in washing machines and putting food on the table than they are about forcing others to conform to their way of thinking. Kids tend to behave like kids everywhere and while it’s more complicated with adults, it’s the complications that make it such a muddy picture. There are good people and bad people and every shade in between. If we ignore all this variety in order to adopt a convenient fantasy that they are all the same, we take steps down some very, very dark pathways. Perhaps that’s just wishy, washy, liberal me talking.