I am here; you are here; through no act or fault of our own we exist. What consideration
do I owe you and what do you owe me? What do I owe society and what does society owe
me by virtue of our existence? We are bound together in a social contract, not of our
choosing, that places bounds on our activities and expectations.
Thoughts of deity aside, I own me. My brain operates independently of all others through
its internal connections. I am adult, not yet determined to be senile or of compromised
mental function. I have unfettered freedom to do as I wish so long as I accept full
responsibility for the consequences of my actions, accord to others the same freedom, and
do not intrude on them in any way.
There are among us those who have not yet reached an age of accountability. As they grow
and develop physically and mentally they progress from total dependence to independence
and the freedoms I enjoy. Society has set certain benchmarks for their acquisition of
responsibility and independence of action, such as 18 for military service, 21 for voting,
differing ages for marriage -- although science tells us the brain is not fully developed
until about age 25. Again, we have among us those who were formerly fully functional but
through disease or accident or advancing years are judged to be no longer capable of total
responsibility and independence of action. I won't try to categorize these extremes, but
we of sound mind must enunciate principles by which we determine our roles as individuals
and as a society.
There are also among us whose who would, for personal profit, pleasure or satisfaction,
willingly (and possibly heedlessly) -- even aggressively -- pursue activities that have the
potential to impose obligations or hardships on their fellows. I leave it to you to place
these attitudes in your scheme of desirable attributes; you must decide your willingness
to assist these folks in their selfish pursuits.
While I enjoy no elevated status, and it would be arrogant to suggest my opinions are
superior to yours, I commend these thoughts for comparison with your opinions. Click on
specific topics:
I repeatedly refer to the concept of 'accident of personal history.' Much of what we
experience comes about without deliberate choice on our part; it is an outgrowth of our
response to the immediate environment in which we are immersed, which comes about
without our rational direction; it is not willfully sought but an accident of personal
history. Footnote has an example.1To view
footnote, click here.
Personal motivation: However it came about, regardless of what demands religion places
upon you, and however much you may protest otherwise, self-interest in way ahead of
whatever is in second place. Think it through. Whether you are a 'cradle' believer,
responded to the appeal of a preacher, chose to add it to an otherwise successful life,
sought in desperation to correct a life that had gone askew, or dedicated your life to
promote a cause, you regard it as being in your own self-interest.
The strength of religious conviction of many people amazes me. Most of us arrived at our
convictions through an accident of personal history rather than through the exercise of
reason. Many who endorse Atheism came to that stance through rebellion at what they
recognized as rationally unsupportable doctrine rather than through rational comparison of
alternatives. Many religious people endorse the narrow doctrinal pronouncements of one
denomination or another, which they learned through recitations by someone they trusted,
and stoutly defend them against all challenges, utterly without recourse to exercise of mind.
I assert that we ought to use what mind we have to resolve conflicts between our various
areas of knowledge.
Many religions that have survived over the centuries have their Fundamentalists. Like the
Amish of Pennsylvania, they seek to deny progress, I suppose because it may represent a
challenge to their faith. But there will always be those who seek for themselves the
advantages progress affords them and they will forge ahead. In time the results of
progress will prevail, Fundamentalism will be consigned to the ash heap of history, and
the surviving religions will assimilate the results of progress. I don't advocate the
reckless disregard for religious tradition, but I do recognize the inexorable impact of
time and events; religious institutions, like all else, must adapt if they are to survive.
Whether religion has been for mankind a blessing or a curse is a matter of perspective.
It has happened repeatedly in various religions: the One and His followers, who seek to
bless their fellows, establish an organization which, upon succession, falls eventually
under the control of others willing to twist the faith to their personal purposes. So priests
in early religions presented deity as a fearful personality so individuals needed the
intercession of privileged persona to shield them from the wrath of deity. Once the
Christian church was recognized by Rome its leadership gradually lost sight of its origin,
reverted to the earlier priestly notion of intercession and created a hierarchy that so
abused its moral underpinnings it had to be reformed. Likewise many Muslims strive to
subvert their faith to purposes foreign to the founding spirit. In such cases those who
distort the founder's vision, for their selfish purposes, grasp onto teachings that
represented progress at the time of their origin; they then seek to maintain an aura that,
in effect, negates the progress later society makes in its science and its organization --
whatever it takes to seize power for their own personal aggrandizement.
Even though we in this country preach religious tolerance, religious freedom has its
limits. For instance, members of a religious cult that practices mutilation of a woman's
sex organs, when they come to this country, live under a law that forbids mutilation of
the body. Mormons were required to give up their practice of plural marriages. And
Muslims, while they may privately practice Sharia law, must disavow the establishment
of a theocracy in this country.
What do you worship? Is it a scroll or other artifact safely deposited in an obscure
niche at your house of worship? Is it money or its benefits? Or is it the deity whose
forebearance has made these things possible? The mind plays tricks on us; it is
difficult to keep deity, that non-physical Spirit, in the forefront of our attention; the
physical can easily occupy the center of our attention and become our object of
worship.
To those whose primary thrust in life is acquisition of money and its benefits, I insist
the object of their worship is money. Not the deity: money! Personal sense
of values.
As an aside: The more I learn about the amazing complexity of the human body --
the structures and their interplay -- the more convinced I become that a vastly
superior intelligence was at play in the body's design. This is my notion: Deity and
His subordinates were involved in -- sometimes manipulating for their own purposes --
the evolution of biological entities on Earth. Intelligent Design, if you will: Give
credit where credit is due. I concur with the basic notion of evolution, that successive
generations produce random changes in individual members of their kind, which, over
the generations, lead to markedly different characteristics in their descendants. The
theist-atheist dispute questions the role of deity, if such exist, but I submit that the
on-going saga of life on Earth is as much a surprise to deity as it is to us.
In an opinion newsletter I once edited discussion of homosexuality and
abortion never ceased. Those discussions plus extensive study led me to the conclusion
that some 4% of males and 3% of females consider themselves homosexual; of these
some 40% were genetically predisposed while the balance commenced their homosexual
identity as a matter of choice or as an accident of personal history1 To view footnote, click here.
I have been informed that homosexual behavior was common in ancient days. How will
herdsmen entertain themselves during months of isolation as they follow their herds?
In recognition of possible pregnancies, how can sexual urges be satisfied where there
is no knowledge of contraception? So the Greeks segregated whole armies on the
basis of sexual preference and their homosexuals were reputed to have been their most
ferocious warriors. (Perhaps we should return to the Greek model in this regard.)
A long time correspondent to my newsletter apparently had little sex drive but
did enjoy feminine clothing; he 'came out of the closet' as a transvestite after the
deaths of both parents. He later joined a household of transsexuals because, I
suppose, they shared the experience of rejection by 'normal' society. But he found the
interests of men who became women, or women who became men, were not
compatible with his relatively mild rejection of sexual mores such as cross-dressing.
So he moved out.
I am not familiar with the teachings of other religions, but Christianity strongly
endorses men being men and women being women; I regard departure from that
delineation to be sexually perverse. At the same time, charity dictates (and the
church encourages) compassion toward all. Regardless of sexual orientation,
we share the needs of housing, sustenance, freedom of conscience and activity,
education, good government, etc. (I should likely include sexual expression in
that list.)
Government has no stake in the sexual expression of the individual so
long as that person refrains from transgressing on others; should persons of like
sex choose to live together that is no concern of mine or anyone else not a
partner to the choice. Moreover, it seems rational to allow public recognition
of a choice of one to commit his life to the welfare of the other. Since I regard
marriage as a religious sacrament while our laws make of it a civil union, I favor
recognizing 'civil unions' as a legislative matter and allowing the church to work
its wishes on 'marriage.' But I don't want homosexuals intruding on me in any
sense, either personally by subjecting me to sexual advances or politically by
insisting on more than a fair share of public attention or public funding.
We have no records, and I doubt the fossil record suggests, when early man
recognized the connection between practice of sex and pregnancy, while I have no
doubt instinct brought men and women together in the sex act. And the growth of
marriage as an institution undoubtedly was encouraged by the recognition that one
man paired with one woman offered the most practical and peaceful means of
satisfying both instinct and the demands of community.
Nature has provided reason for a woman to have a single sex partner. Introducing cells of
a different DNA into the body, as in organ transplant, requires medication to suppress the
immune system. Preparations placed on the skin or lining of bodily organs, such as the
mouth, stomach or cervix, are absorbed to some degree; and the skin lining her sex organs
absorb secretions introduced during sex. So a man's sperm, when absorbed, introduces to
the woman's blood stream foreign DNA and her body must respond to accept it without
harming her immune system. So a single sex partner, with its limited antagonism in her
body due to contrary contributions of DNA, places a lesser burden on her system.
Emerging research shows that conditioning a woman's immune system with a particular
man's sperm reduces the incidence of exclampsia (convulsions) during pregnancy. Not
only should she enjoy better health with a single sex partner, but the environment for a
fetus should suffer less compromise, leading to a healthier infant.
Whatever lies behind it, our young are apparently driven at ever-younger ages to
experiment with sex; it has resulted in a sub-culture of children having children. Our
educational system has failed to adequately intervene, but I do endorse education of
youngsters in the universality of sex in reproduction -- in Nature as well as extension to
human reproduction. Neither do marriage laws appear to be effective in encouraging
children to avoid the activities leading to pregnancies. It is beyond reason to suggest
oversight of our young people adequate to preclude experimentation, so we must depend
on education to persuade them to be responsible in their response to their sexuality. I
suggest, as part of our schools, subjecting all girls after age nine or so to periodic urine
tests for pregnancy (by a collection by classroom or grade - or even school - and then
individually should there be a suggestion of positive indication) and automatically
aborting every pregnancy where no responsible adult steps forward to guarantee
financial support of mother and child.
Prostitution as a career choice has resulted in reducing the pressure on men for
sexual release with randomly selected victims. Unfortunately many people feel that
passing a few laws will repeal instinct. Prostitution will be practiced, whether criminal
or not; I endorse giving it a cloak of respectability by licensing, mandating a degree of
education of licensees, and encouraging development of a medical system to curb
sexually transmitted diseases.
Some say marriage is itself prostitution. Where the choice of mate is dictated by
financial concerns, I agree that it is selling the body for financial gain. Happily, a large
proportion of marriages are entered into for more lofty reasons.
Live-in lovers have become common in our time; it has become an ordinary prelude to
(and often substitute for) marriage. In a practical vein, the practice serves the purpose
of instinct; in a legal vein it fails to establish property rights. It does not encourage
normal family life -- the begetting and rearing of children -- and I question if it fulfills
the emotional urge for closeness. I think the practice an ordinary and predictable outcome
of introduction of the birth control pill and the sexual revolution it spawned.
Over the next generation or two society will decide, through the accumulated results
of efforts to enhance performance, whether to create specialties based on control of
genetics. While I am an ardent fan of the Olympics movement, my suspicion is that
the near future will present us with super-athletes produced by genetic enhancements;
projecting that into the future, there will likely arise divergent cultures based on
introduction of genetic alteration. A culture of body mass and power, a culture of
manual dexterity, a culture of speed, . . ., based on the needs of various athletic
endeavors. And our games will undoubtedly evolve to follow these divergent cultures.
I can't help wondering about the daughters of men bred for football or basketball, or the
career prospects of those who prefer to follow career paths other than the one for which
a parent was genetically enhanced. Among other things it will create entertaining fiction
involving the conflicts genetic enhancements create. But the excellence in athletic
performance will surely be magnified.
Alcohol: I grew up in an environment that taught you were either a teetotaler or
a sot drunkard; there was no middle ground. It is true that taking the first drink reduces
your inhibitions about taking further drinks, but in my experience most people who
partake of alcohol do so responsibly. For the few who can't or won't drink responsibly
the penalty should be quick, harsh and certain, such as temporarily losing a driver's
license on a first offense, longer for a second or third offense, but permanently with
repeated offenses, or extensive and possibly obnoxious community service. Whatever
the penalty, society should not be burdened with the cost of his habit.
I have been informed that there is a genetic link in addiction to alcoholic beverages, that
it 'runs in families.' I have also been informed that one rarely recovers from alcoholism
but that there is a life-long necessity for the assistance of God and the encouragement of
others similarly afflicted.
Tobacco: I doubt that anyone in school or with his ears open has not heard the
message that tobacco, dipping or chewing or smoking, either cigars or cigarettes,
is harmful to his health. So long as he is careful with his fire, I concede that his
personal freedom allows that privilege. What troubles me is the expectation that,
later in life when the consequences of his choice become a serious detriment to
his health, public charity should be expected to cover his medical expenses. His
choice. But I don't want him intruding on me to pay for his choice.
Second-hand smoke is another matter in that it affects those around the smoker.
Should it be the smoker's privilege to compromise the health of others? I smoked
pipes and cigarettes some 20 years but have been smoke-free the last half of my life.
My lungs were damaged to the extent that being in a smoke-filled room for an hour
causes my lungs to be afire for hours afterward. Young children, according to
studies, have compromised immune systems as a result of exposure. What is, what
can be, done to balance the smoker's freedom to smoke against the ill effect of his
smoke on his victims?
Drugs (other than tobacco and alcohol): Our legislatures must distinguish
between the mild, dangerous and deadly drugs. I don't regard marijuana as being nearly
as dangerous as alcohol or insidious as crack cocaine or heroin. But, if you choose to
partake, you know beforehand that they can be harmful or possibly addictive. Your
choice, but do it so I cannot be affected. People who traffic in significant quantities of
dangerous or deadly drugs are not innocent to the consequences on their customers; if
we truly wish to stamp out this traffic then the penalties for trafficking must be set
extremely high, comparable to the penalty for murder. If I could mandate it, I would rule
that anyone caught with a significant candestine quantity (to be defined) of deadly drug
(also to be defined) would be shot dead on the spot -- no questions asked and no police
harassment -- inquiry, yes -- as a consequence. Innocents?: The question is, Do we
want to stop the traffic.
Criminal activity, I would suggest, is a dangerous profession. I have little
sympathy for those who deliberately engage in it for their financial support and much
prefer extermination over public support in prisons. Stop to think about the death penalty:
Should we allow a person to deliberately choose a profession that will, if society is
successful in deterring his propensity for violence and stealth, result in the public supporting
him? (But we might execute an innocent person: Sure, mistakes happen, but the percentage
is minuscule compared with deaths from vehicle or fire or other accident or with deaths
produced by criminals in pursuit of their criminal activities.)
Crimes of passion (other than sex) seem more spontaneous, with less deliberation.
Even so, a person fleeing from a murder or other heinous crime should not survive to reach
jail. As I view it, instant retribution is actually more humane than the death penalty for
perpetrators. (While I have no experience with either short-term or extended incarceration,
I suspect that life without the possibility of parole is a more weighty punishment than
the death sentence. It is certainly infinitely more expensive for society, a fact that
distresses me because of the cost of maintaining a life whose only purpose appears to be
to provide employment in a penal system as well as work for judges and lawyers.)
Extreme sports: Degree of risk to the participant's life and limb varies sport
by sport: sky diving; deep-water diving; spelunking; parasailing; rapelling; . . . I am glad
people enjoy such diverse avocations and sometimes wish I were more adventurous. But
I feel it unwise -- and even greedy -- to expect that the public, at its expense, will rush to
the devotee's assistance in the event of mishap. Part of his preparation for involvement
in such activities ought to be buying an insurance policy to cover expenses in the event of
accident. I think it blindly self-seeking -- and exceeds the bounds of charity -- to ignore
the possibility of mishap and expect to place himself on public charity. It may be
difficult for people of charitable inclination to accept, but I feel there should be general
recognition that acceptance of risk is part of the sportsman's reward; he should be
required, by law if necessary, to underwrite the costs of failure at his own expense.
There should be the understanding that, in the absence of preparation for mishap, the
individual will be left to his own devices and his own finances.
I have great admiration for those who have incurred disabilities in performing what
they consider their obligation to society; I have utter disrespect for those who have
willfully sought or feigned disability as a means of gaining an advantage, be it economic
or moral or any other.
I won’t enter the “When does life begin” discussion -- It takes life to create life --
because I feel it is misdirected. (Is the ovum alive?) But let us review the chain of
development to see if we can pick out that magical moment when a new life must be
recognized.
A cell that becomes an ovum is nourished within a follicle in the ovary; when mature and
when a certain balance of hormones is reached, the follicle ruptures, releasing its ovum
into the fallopian tube. Each ovum includes in its gamete 23 of the 46 chromosomes
necessary to produce a new being. Of the several millions of sperm in a single ejaculation
several may be strong enough to propel themselves up the fallopian tube to greet a
descending ovum and upon contact attempt to penetrate the protective cell wall of the
ovum. Ordinarily that cell wall hardens when penetrated so only one spermatozoon can
enter. Once in the ovum the spermatozoon must migrate so its gamete with its 23
chromosomes combine with the ovum’s gamete to give the 46 -- the zygote (with its DNA
or blueprint) -- necessary to development of a new being. Once merging has occurred we
say the ovum has been fertilized; then the multiplicative process begins. The descending
zygote is nourished by nutrients that were contained within the ovum; it soon consists of
many cells and grows into the blastocyst with its layers of cells around a central cavity,
eventually reaching the uterus where, if conditions are right, it will become implanted and
become the embryo in its own sac to maintain its distinct vascular system. Unfertilized
ova will simply continue their journey and be discharged from the body.
Evidently only one spermatozoon may enter the ovum, else there would be the competitive
struggle to combine with the ovum's gamete. My readings don’t reveal what sort of
competition there may be at the ovum's cell wall, or, again, in the uterus should two ova
have been released and fertilized, giving rise to two blastocysts. I speculate that two
blastocysts gives rise to fraternal twins.6To view
footnote, click here.
Things sometimes go wrong. Either female or male gamete may be defective; more than one
spermatozoon may penetrate before the ovum’s cell wall has become sufficiently hardened;
the blastocyst may simply pass on through the uterus and be discharged along with its
unfertilized sisters. But, once implanted in and nourished by the uterus, the blastocyst
continues its multiplicative process to become the embryo (generally designated as such
for the first trimester); from there the process continues to produce a fetus (the second
and third trimesters) and, eventually, a birth.
It should be obvious that much of the above, often through the embryonic stage, takes
place beyond the watchful eyes of either male or female participant in the sex act. At
some later time -- usually days or weeks, but sometimes months -- the woman becomes aware
of her pregnancy. My question in all the above is this: Where in the chain of developments
is that magical moment when the product of fertilization becomes of societal concern? And,
in a practical vein, how can we detect the passage of that magical moment? It has been my
contention in the abortion debates that discovery of pregnancy is the moment of medical or
societal concern, and before discovery the ordinary concerns of good health, livelihood and
pursuit of happiness prevail. If you differ with me you in effect assert that a sexually
active woman is hostage to her sex because of the continuing need to nurture a presence
unknown to her, even if there is none. Some women may welcome being hostage because they
wish for pregnancy while others may find it an unwelcome intrusion into their pursuit of other
objectives. (Parenthetically, it is the essence of freedom that men and women are equally
free to select and define their own objectives.)
It is an absurdity to require by law that the utmost in medical abilities be
brought to bear to secure each product of the sex act from its demise either
from the time of recognition of pregnancy or from the moment a spermatozoon
has successfully penetrated the outer layer of an ovum. I have seen monstrous
medical expenses laid upon people with no hope for payment, thus consigning
them to a life of poverty, in order to preserve a life that cannot, because of a
known deficiency, live a meaningful life. I have seen marriages torn apart by
the needs for special care so that one parent is consigned to a life of despair.
A subscriber to an opinion newsletter I once edited related her personal
experience. She was philosophically opposed to abortion, but when her own
teenage daughter became pregnant she reflected on the consequences in her
aspirations for her daughter’s life and the daughter’s aspirations for her own life.
They dashed off to the abortion clinic. Stark reality overruled philosophical
opposition.
Whether eugenics ever becomes commonly and willfully practiced, it should be obvious
that evolution has done its job when the individual survives long enough to propagate his
own kind. Extending life spans must be the product of deliberate effort to learn what
factors affect life span; it must be the product of exercise of mind.
For weeks the words of the song "you're nobody 'til somebody loves you" have imposed
themselves on my mind. It is a truism that, should you not contribute in some way to a
meaningful life for someone else, or someone else to you, in eyes beyond yourself you may
as well not exist. I wonder how many lives of mischief and crime have resulted from the
simple cry "I am here, too; is there someone who cares." Seems natural enough since
loving and being loved are among life's goals for many of us. Of course, the social
contract cannot be voided by your lack or the lack of others.
Stem cell research: I have been studying cells. Each cell is an immensely
complex community even when specialized to a specific function. Stem cells seem
even more complex in that they have the capability to be the root or stem from which
grow various kinds of specialized cells. In adults stem cells may be extracted from
specialized sites that limit their further differentiation. A human blastocyst may
consist of hundreds of thousands of cells by the time it has descended to the
uterus to become implanted there, and cells are already specializing into precursor
organs. Stem cells of maximum versatility must be extracted very early in the
multiplicative process and are best taken immediately after fertilization of the ovum,
which is for this purpose best accomplished by artificial means in the petri dish.
I don't question that even the zygote has the potential to become a person when
properly nurtured. But it remains within the province of the owner of the zygote
whether or not to pursue nurture of any particular zygote. Fertilization clinics have
unnumbered zygotes that must be either implanted or destroyed. From my
standpoint it is senseless to insist that the only acceptable form of destruction is
discard. The potential to be a person will be realized only after delivery of the
infant from the womb. How can we insist that the zygote or blastocyst that is
inevitably bound for destruction has the same moral status as a child or adult
who can be made whole through use of that cluster of cells?
Cloning will eventually be successful in producing a human adult; that is the
nature of the progression of science. But whether tellomeres or some other limitation
will intrude to degrade the cloned product, either immediately or through the succession
of cloned generations, may not be known for many generations thereafter.
Modern medicine, both traditional and alternative, has fallen heir to selfish
motives, a major factor being the intrusion of government. Each of us wishes the best of
health for himself, but most of us feel inadequate in knowledge of bodily processes,
disease agents and chemistry; whether or not they deserve it we must place confidence in
those who presume to have the best preparation modernity affords. But our FDA has
become a bureaucratic vehicle of personal ambition, has imposed its bureaucracy on
medical practitioners, and is so influenced by drug interests that health has become
secondary to the profit motive. "It's the economy, Stupid. Why would any right-thinking
person limit himself to a penny aspirin when there is a $5 prescription pill to do the
same job?"
Protracted coma: To be forced to decide to withdraw life support: What an awful
predicament! There are known instances where a person has fully recovered after months of
vegetative existence, but medicine now has the tools to determine if the brain has suffered
severe irreparable loss, and application of such tools should ease the emotional trauma of
ending life support. Our sense of humanity must be our guide.
Irreversible mental decline: I advocate respecting the stated wish of someone
who has lost, and is unlikely to recover, mental capacity. As long as I have the mental
capacity to determine the life/death tipping point, my wishes should be focal in
decisions regarding my care. I sometimes think of the inhumanity of forcing a person to
continue life when he has lost the capacity to recognize his life has no quality whatever,
he is not the object of affection of any known mortal, and the only rational reason for his
continued existence is the income care-givers receive for his care. In cases where disease
or accident has resulted in severe mental decline, we need publicly-accepted rules to help
us determine when deliberate steps should be taken to allow a life to end or to end a life.
Again, our sense of humanity must be our guide.
Irreversible physical decline: Only the afflicted can evaluate his own wish to
overcome his obstacles to living a life that is acceptable to him. And only his care givers
can evaluate the burden of care they are willing to accept. It seems unlikely that a conflict
dictated by financial concerns will be happily resolved, but I advocate allowing someone
to seek assistance in ending his own life. It is, after all, his
life.
Severe emotional trauma or depression: This is outside my experience; I cannot
evaluate for another and offer no opinions.
Euthanasia: A cultivated sense of decency and humanity must come into play in
making life/death decisions.
Does anyone doubt for the slightest moment that a homosexual man or woman
will influence children under his control to adopt a homosexual life style? Would
that not be a violation of what he sees as his own person? I see unions of two
lesbians (or homosexual men) who had children by marriage and now have
custody: families of two female parents or two male parents with children. And I
hear the argument that homosexual persons should be allowed by law to adopt
children. Children need adults, preferably loving adults; we cannot yank children
from their lawful custodians, nor should we remove them from an environment
where they are loved and thriving, but it is folly to suggest a homosexual parent will
aggressively take steps to insure his children will adopt a heterosexual life style.
(We should be mindful that only 1.6% of men and 1.2% of women2 To view footnote, click here
-- or some 10% should you accept numbers advanced by the homosexual
community -- have a genetic tendency toward homosexuality; and we should
expect children to have genetically determined homosexual tendencies in roughly
the same proportion.)
Child pregnancy: I recognize this as a land mine issue. The specter of a
child, not yet possessing the mental faculty to rationally act independently, haunts me.
As suggested in my essay on abortion, our public schools should regularly conduct
tests for pregnancy and, in cooperation with parents, seek the best outcome for both
the pregnant child, her family and society as a whole. Religion -- or ethics --
undoubtedly plays a part, but I am adamant that one person should not be allowed
to impose his religion or ethics on another, certainly not with the force of law. In
private school situations it should be parent-school contact how an unplanned
pregnancy will be dealt with; in public schools a uniform policy should be set within the
school system, and parents of children in that system should be made aware of that policy
and their options.
If a school is not available, because of geography or economics, that satisfies the
parents' ideas of how their children shall be treated, they have the option of relocating
where an acceptable school is available. I do endorse sex education in all schools,
public and private, with parents selecting the age at which each child will be expected to
undertake that aspect of his education. And, where there is lack of a parental role, a
uniform policy should be established by the school board. Let's get out heads out
of the sand!
Steroids: Who would have thought it: pre-teen and teenage girls using steroids to
hasten their development of a womanly figure. Why?! Motivation scares me. Are they
anxious for the enticements of sex? Are the teen-age years so emotionally disturbing that
they wish to by-pass them? Will it encourage more manly features in the later teens and
early twenties -- the antithesis of what they seek now? Is the notion that there is a pill
for every purpose, cultivated by drug companies from infancy, turning our culture inside
out?
Masturbation: I present without discussion the question whether, in the absence of
organized sex education, it would be preferable to present a teenage boy with a clean and
effective means of relieving the sexual tensions of adolescence while respecting a girl's
wish to retain her virginity.
Self-preservation: When you are staring into the eyeballs of someone
bent on doing you harm is no time to think about police protection. If you aren't
physically strong enough and trained to physically subdue someone, you must
rely on other measures. Weapons come to mind. Of course, you, hopefully, as
a practice, avoid places and situations prone to such confrontations. Also,
hopefully, you have mastered the use of whatever weapons you possess.
Medicine: I have no doubt our mind is capable of influencing the sub-
conscious operations of the body, but our knowledge is inadequate for us to rely
on that in place of medical practitioners. Years ago a co-worker joined a group to try
to influence cloud formaton by exercise of mind; while they claimed limited success
the project was abandoned. We hear claims of faith healing and I
must conclude that many of the claimed successes are real; after all, Edgar
Casey enjoyed a success rate far exceeding what probability theory would allow.
Medicine is learning how to intervene and restore to functionality persons who in the past
would have died before reproducing; our gene pool is obviously weakened by
their survival to propagation. Medicine is now on the cusp of remedying many
genetic defects in the individual and his offspring. Since evolution did not anticipate
life spans of 60+ years; we must exercise our intelligence in finding means to extend
healthy, vibrant life to eight or ten decades or beyond.
From time to time we are forced to face the stark reality that medicine is dollar
driven. We must recognize that mitigating symptoms retains you as a
paying customer while cure removes you as a paying customer; which do you
suppose drug companies and physicians prefer? (I am sure doctors are aware that
dentistry advocated strengthening teeth by additions to public drinking water sources, and
now dentistry has declined as a profession; it was an object lesson in maintaining a healthy
bank account.) If you needed motivation for education or self-education, here it is:
Only through education can you defend yourself from needlessly inflating
someone else's bank account at your expense.
Nor can the practitioners of alternatives to traditional medicine claim to be free of the
profit motive. Hardly more than a century ago anyone who wished could practice medicine.
Today it is still true that you must select from the forms of treatment you know to be
available, just as you decide when to seek treatment. Reflecting on the question of where
to place your confidence, it is obvious that, the greater your fund of knowledge, the better
prepared you are to make wise choices. Again, education.
Who can deny that prevention is preferable to remedy? Only you can weigh the comparative
cost to yourself of adopting a healthy life style and diet versus remedy of affliction once
it has overtaken you.
Is government intervention wise or folly? I regard self-education as your only
wise choice in maintaining personal health, and any system that weakens your motivation
for self-education is ultimately destructive. To the extent that dollar pressure is your
reason for educating yourself, reducing dollar costs reduces motivation to seek sources
of reliable information. Sure, I enjoy the government's efforts to reduce my cost to
forfeiting some leisure time in pursuit of medical advice and prescription drugs. But, is
that really in the best interest of citizens? Requiring me to bear a substantial portion of
the dollar costs is the best means of motivating me to be more reliant on self and less
dependent on public assistance. I heartily advocate the government(s) taking significant
initiative to encourage people to learn about their bodily needs for extended healthy
lives (one option being offering improved benefits following satisfactory completion of
classroom study).
In therapy sessions following my heart attack I learned that only 1/4 of attacks have
associated pain, that the most common symptom is the feeling of pressure within the
chest. A cardiologist suggested, after I took a stress test, that I should seek help when
and if I experienced pain. There is an obvious suggestion here that is patently wrong.
I feel strong measures should be taken against professionals who propagate such a myth
since they are consigning 3/4 of heart attack victims to premature death. My upcoming
book, Love to Live and Live to Love, which should be available before mid-2008,
discusses this in much greater detail.
The present system of approving drugs is in need of reform. Taking a pool of
several thousand and giving half a placebo (double blind test) insures that half the
participants gain no advantage. And: Refusing to allow prescription of experimental
drugs to those diagnosed with terminal illnesses denies people a choice in seeking
life-extending medications.
I proposed that the ideas of quality of life and object of affection
are valid concerns in reflecting on the wisdom of intervening to preserve a life.
Wishing not to repeat myself at this web site, I refer you to my essay on abortion.
A link appears at the end of this essay.
Immune system: Stress, whether emotional or physical or medical, has a
negative effect on your immune system and thus reduces your capacity to rebound
from exposure to harmful viruses and/or bacteria or from over-extension of your
own capabilities. I like humor to reduce stress. To the extent pain relief reduces
stress, it allows strengthening the immune system; I encourage consideration of
hypnosis as a means of relieving protracted or chronic pain; while it doesn't work
equally for all people, it is one option in the battery of available treatments. I read
that those possessed of a religious persuasion experience less emotional stress or
rebound from it more readily and thus have stronger immune systems.
Physical inheritance: DNA: Those wondrously long chains of amino acids
determine our physical form; our intelligence; the number, shape and placement of limbs and
bodily organs. But we are told that only a few combinations create the differences between
man and apes or bacteria. And peculiarities in DNA are being used to demonstrate our
individuality as persons. My suspicion is that few of those combinations, in their
sequences, are not in some way influential in development of the whole body. Nature is
selfish; it is not wasteful. Something must determine which and when certain sequences in
those chains of DNA become active. So I suspect our present understanding is woefully
lacking in fathoming the consequences of sequences and their position on the chain.
Homelessness: I have wrestled with this; it is a perplexing problem. I guess
we need to divide these people into three categories.
1) I have great sympathy for people who have suffered misfortune, been forced from a
productive life, yearn for self-sufficiency, and are intent on improving their circumstance.
They should be offered re-education at public expense and housed and fed while they
actively pursue betterment. I would even offer them counselling plus (forgivable) loans
for tools and necessities to help them toward a new career. Undoubtedly there are some
who have surrendered and lost their willingness for self-sacrifice to overcome their
misfortune (and some who prefer perennial victimhood); these are tragedies with no
apparent remedy.
2) We don't want our streets littered with dregs whose ambition has been reduced to
acceptance of what the public will offer. We need camps where they can be assigned
to work cooperatively with others in like circumstance to provide their own sustenance
-- while not competing with productive enterprises. There is little point in offering more
than a bed, food and a library where they can while their hours when not productively
engaged in their share of the work load (and, hopefully, acquire ambition). There should
be no non-motivational entertainment and their lives should be deliberately sterile in the
hope they can be motivated to self-improvement.
3) Surrender to addiction presents a unique set of conditions. Some can, with assistance,
overcome their addiction; some have surrendered and are in fact hopeless or destroyed.
Treatment should be available at public expense where there appears the possibility of
effectively overcoming their addiction. When it is deemed likely there is no hope for
improvement, the kindest thing we can do is provide circumstances where they can
self-destruct and end their misery.
It may at first blush seem cruel, but, where hope for a rewarding life has been irretrievably
lost, there is little point in the public exercising its initiative to provide bare sustenance
-- and there is little incentive to offer more. Where life has lost meaning and hope for
emotional reward, that individual warrants no more than warehousing until his attitude
mends or his life ends. It is disheartening, but there are among us individuals where a
simple sense of humanity suggests allowing an end to their suffering.
Death Penalty: (Two thoughts):
Social Security: Most people recognize that Social Security, which is linked to
retirement, is in need of change if it is to remain viable. Life spans of vigorous
good health have been greatly lengthened since Social Security was enacted, and somehow
this must be accommodated. Delaying retirement still further is, of course, one option, but
many people in their 40s and 50s have acquired limitations while others retain active good
health into their 70s and 80s. The onset of Social Security payments should likely be
electable -- at reduced benefits -- years earlier than at present while more options are
offered for delayed receipt of Social Security. (And handicap benefits, which have been
exceedingly generous because money was so readily available, must be reexamined.)
Has truthfulness devolved to a matter of personal convenience? When I was
young we debated the propriety of 'little white lies' -- insignificant untruths to spare
hurt feelings. Now a TV judge declares you know a teenager is lying because his lips
are moving: he wants something. I marvel at the ingenuity of writers of TV detective
shows in creating dialogue that obfuscates, misleads, distracts, distorts, ignores and
otherwise avoids even a suggestion of truth. And we had the spectacle of the President
of our country lying under oath (and protected from consequences by his friends) and
declaring an untruth over national TV. Is truth something conscience no longer demands?
Is lying now acceptable if it furthers your own cause?
Sex education of the young: This may seem an odd place for this topic, but the
remedy begins with us: We have hang-ups we need to face. Physicians don't know what
triggers them, but at some ten to fourteen years certain glands begin to produce hormones
that affect bodily structures and appetites. And those hormone will rage; that is part of
adolescence and, as we all know, there are temptations. We adults need to re-think and
instruct our governments on the results.
I am personally appalled at the suggestion of making condoms freely available to grammar
and middle school youngsters, and I abhor the advertising required to make that useful. I
don't even encourage it for high schoolers, for it is openly encouraging intimacy and
sexual intercourse. I don't like to see pregnant adolescents and teens, and I don't like
to see children who have not yet learned what life offers tending their offspring and
accepting the limitations motherhood requires. We need to teach our youngsters there are
alternatives to intercourse.
I have only anecdotal information on what a female experiences in the way of sexual
arousal; perhaps a reader will enlighten me. But I do know what a boy experiences, and his
erection means he has an accumulation of bodily fluids that needs to be reduced. "Wet
dreams" accomplish that but I don't know how to induce them. I do recognize masturbation
as a possibility, but there needs to be lubrication to prevent tearing the skin; almost any oil
-- baby oil, cooking oil -- will do and should be openly available to the boy. Sanitation
should be practiced but there should be no effort to induce shame.
Given the choice of
I recall a federal surgeon general being forced to resign because he openly advocated
masturbation. Ministers, teachers, parents, public officials -- adults all -- all need to
re-think. The time has come.
I assume the status of women changed from dominance, when they exercised the
magic of bringing forth an infant, to submission, when the connection between man and
infant was recognized. We recognize in today's world the entire range of interdependence
of men and women from total dominance of men over women to effective control of
men by women. I personally endorse the idea that each adult individual has equal
rights and equal authority. But Nature has endowed men and women with differing
physical and mental characteristics and hence different roles in the human saga. And
in the practicalities of community life women are sometimes required to make personal
decisions that are foreign to men.
I commend the notion of equal reward for equal production. A woman choosing family as
her career evidently precludes the consistent effort necessary to climbing the business
career ladder; lagging in career promotions seems a necessary part of that choice. Perhaps
there is merit to a system where a woman may elect (or abandon) an uninterruptable career
path that precludes time out for births and nurturing youngsters, thereby allowing her job
experience to be cumulative.
I choose not to carry this discussion further at this time.
Call it 'greed' or call it 'enlightened self-interest,' the desire to improve one's
own lot in comparison with others has been a strong element in invention, in economic
development, in scientific explorations, in art and literature, in . . . We would be a
much impoverished species without it; yet, unbridled greed must be restrained to
allow later arrivals to exercise their own greed.
Someone observed that, in an egalitarian society, all would be equal in their poverty.
How utterly and devastatingly true! If all have equal access to life's necessities, why
would anyone seek to advance himself? In consequence, why would anyone accept the
risk of economic development?
Political corruption is government-sanctioned greed. There seems a one-on-one connection
between political corruption and backwardness of economic development -- as is evident
in Mexico and many other countries around the world.
Yet, laissez faire has its limits. Unrestrained pursuit of wealth in
disregard for the consequences in the lives of others leads to economic unbalance and
dislocation and a consequent social unhappiness. A century ago predatory trade practice
made it necessary to enact anti-trust laws; during the last decades restraint of trade based
on intellectual property rights made possible super-fortunes in a burgeoning computer
industry; today we are witnessing free trade ravishing our middle class. These
matters have been thrown into the political arena in the hope of preventing extreme social
unbalance.
Public assistance: The suggestion that illegal immigrants take the jobs citizens
don't want is a fiction. Citizens on welfare look at the marginal improvement in income
for working as opposed to indolence: Why subject yourself to the harassments of
submission to a boss for a pittance more than freedom offers? Moreover, many of the
apparently unemployed work in the shadow economy of day labor or domestic jobs where
there is no accounting for funds. Our illegal immigration problem is a predictable outcome
of our public welfare programs.
I just read a joke(?) about a visitor to this country encountering on the street a Russian, a
Nigerian, a Turk, a Thai, a Mexican, . . . (aliens all) and asking "Where are the Americans?"
"Why, of course, they are working." I see irony in a visitor expecting his host to be at
work while he pursues his own interests. Shamefully, our politicians have found it entirely
too entertaining to toss around our tax money to the advantage of non-contributors and
thereby to our detriment. I suppose the theory is "everybody's money is nobody's money.
Gambling versus greed:
The boundary between gambling and entrepreneurship is the willingness
to devote one's own effort to the enterprise; hoping for a quick profit without effort, is
gambling. In that sense, the professional gambler, who has dedicated himself to learning
how to take advantage in order to profit, is an entrepreneur while his victims are
gamblers. Plush casinos and the popularity of lotteries are evidence that gambling as an
industry is immensely profitable. Intriguingly (and logically unsupportable), Bingo games
(a form of lottery) are strictly controlled by the state while the same state openly
advertises its lotteries.
The past two decades have given us two examples of investing as a form of gambling. In
the 1990s it was the stock market, where speculators induced an economically unjustifiable
run-up in prices until there was a realization the underlying corporate profits were not
keeping pace, and stock prices fell to economically supportable levels. (Politically, the
government claimed a budget surplus based on anticipated tax revenues from those gains
in value; both profits and surplus evaporated with the realization there had been inflation
in value.) In the 2000s real estate became the vehicle for speculation in the hope for
immediate profit from property value inflation; once again economic misery followed
realization that the progressive increase in value could not be sustained. Many people had
undertaken obligations their incomes could not support; others had spent the (artificial)
increase in equity. As before, entrepreneurs -- many with predatory or fraudulent schemes
-- and gamblers.
Human cloning, whatever evils it may release, will become a fact. Whether
the results are human or sub-human, results there will be. If we drive the research
from our shores, those wishing to pursue it will find venues and our citizens will be
denied its benefits for as long as it takes for the technology to percolate to our shores.
And the supporting industry will develop elsewhere.
Traffic in human parts, both organs and tissues, is already common, although
organ donation is rigidly controlled while traffic in tissues is outside public view. Huge
profits are being derived from resale and from medical practice. Our wish to prevent body
parts from becoming a matter of commerce only retards development of an industry.
Preventing the suicide-bound from selling his own body parts merely guarantees their
destruction without benefit to anyone. (My body is willed to a medical college; I've no
doubt it will be mined for salable parts before medical students have an opportunity to
learn by dissection.) To my mind it is far better for the traffic to be in the open with
attempts to regulate it, with donors contracting for the sale of their parts; refusal to
recognize merely drives the practice from public view. (Reportedly it is already a shadow
industry using cadavers from funeral homes and Chinese prison executions as sources.)
Allowing sale of a kidney, eye, ovary, testicle, bone marrow, skin or liver tissue would
greatly increase the number of patients who benefit from modern medicine.
Fertility clinics hold untold numbers of fertilized human ova. There is today an
industry for their creation but no legal provision for their demise. Unused fertilized
ova presently have no value, more like garbage than articles of commerce. Yet the
alleviation of human suffering that can result from using those same ova for research
purposes is hindered because of some nebulous idea about their intrinsic worth. They
are slated for loss to human kind; can we not create something of value from that loss?
(Yes, I hold that the product of fertilization, wheher accomplished in a petri dish or the
female body, is worthy of defense as a human individual only after it becomes an object
of affection to an existing mortal.)
Our country's experiment with prohibition of production and distribution of
alcoholic beverages should be a lesson in the lack of power of the legislature to
alter our humanity. Traffic in drugs there will be; we have created a hideous
political machine in an effort to prevent it. How much better it would be to try to
regulate (and possibly benefit from taxes) something that will be practiced anyway.
Laws against prostitution have not been successful in curtailing its practice, nor
will they be. We would benefit from curbing sexually transmitted disease. The AIDS
epidemic should provide lessons: Governments that denied its existence allowed its spread
while denying treatment to its citizens. Sex will be practiced, whether legal or not; our
efforts should be directed to mitigating destructive outcomes.
I was born in New Hampshire and in early childhood I was unaware of animosities
between peoples or groups of people. But I was transplanted to the Deep South
at age 6 in a rural environment in which intolerance was rampant, based not only
on national origin or religion but also on skin color. My personal emotional journey
toward tolerant acceptance of all who chance into my personal orbit has been a
continuing challenge despite recognition that all life has a common source and all
individuals possess similar needs and desires.
My first encounter with intolerance was racial prejudice as white versus black; later
I recognized prejudice based on religion and on national origin. After high school I met a
Greek who became one of my closest friends; a Jewish neighbor became a friend; an
American Indian and I became close associates; I worked for a man of Roman Catholic
persuasion; I learned all could be respected and/or friends if only I would allow it.
Later I hired as artist a black man who was highly intelligent and one of the finest human
beings I have ever known. My present view is based on a combination of reverence for all
life, charitable acceptance of all persons who chance in my path, and practicalities based
on a person's known background and apparent present intention. I have learned it is
totally unfair to assign any individual to a category on the basis of stereotype.
We may categorize intolerance on the basis of race (black-white-brown-yellow) or on
socio-economic status or level of intelligence or education -- or whatever other basis our
personal history suggests. Despite recognition of its unfairness it is difficult to set
aside years of training and experience when facing an unfamiliar person or situation.
Personal safety must always be paramount; a sense of guilt at demonstrating intolerance
is a poor exchange for exposing yourself to possible harm. At the same time we live in
a world populated by diverse cultures and a sense of humanity dictates we assess each
individual as charitably as possible. It is unfortunate we often don't have time enough
to evaluate each person on the basis of his personal qualities and must allow group-think
to dominate our responses.
Whether profiling is good or evil, we know who commits our crimes, and it is grossly
wasteful of public safety resources to assume all are equally criminal or all are equally
upright and judicious. Your own conscience must be your guide in a sense of fairness,
based on the path you have trod, in assigning relative merit to each person who chances
into your own environment and the resulting emotional discomfort or ease of your
responses. When time permits exploration of personal traits, we ought to reflect on the
wisdom "Do to others as you wish them to do to you."
I have recognized the impact of Social Security in enabling the stretching of life into old
age. Without it, many of us would have been unable to retire or would have been forced
on the charity of children.
There is the possibility that the ravages of time or
accident or disease will rob me of self-determination. I have visited nursing homes
and facilities for senior citizens no longer able to live independently; I have seen bodies
whose minds have failed and minds whose bodies have been severely compromised.
And I have contemplated the possibilities for my own life and have instructed my
children on my present wish, should I lose the mental ability to determine things
for myself. So long as I have mind enough to determine for myself the value to
me of continuing in life, I wish to have my choices respected; should I enter that
nether world of mental decline where I can no longer thoughtfully choose -- where I
have lost the one thing that distinguishes me from the lower animals -- then I assert
that continuing in life has lost all meaning to me.5
To view footnote, click here.
I regularly make a judgment whether positive outweighs negative in my wish to continue
life; it determines my conduct; and I suspect most people feel the same way. But care
providers have a problem in determining that point, in the mental decline of someone in
their care, at which continuing support becomes contrary to a sense of humanity. Reflect,
if you will: Contrary to a sense of humanity. And society -- the impartial
observers -- must provide guidelines to assist discernment of that point at which life has
lost meaning to an individual and should be allowed to expire. It is depraved and
self-seeking to insist on supporting a life, simply because that is your source of
income, after it has become obvious that the person in your care has lost functional
mental capacity with no hope for recovery.
Granted that the economic engine that provides jobs, development and progress
depends on people of economic strength and vision seeking to enhance their personal
competitive position, unfettered pursuit of wealth created the need for anti-trust laws
to limit their power. And, as a consequence, the effort to seek advantage was thrown
into the halls of government. We can view the various spectacles growing from
that effort to find balance between personal power and equality of opportunity and
result. It is easy to catalog the results of the fingers of individuals seeking
personal advantage in the face of the quest for social justice.
In the various arenas of the petroleum industry we had the Exxon Valdez disaster,
OPEC seeking to control production in order to increase the price of oil, foreign
political figures seeking to control oil wells in their country, distribution by
governments of royalties producing indolent populations, and petroleum profits
financing the efforts that produced our "war on terror." In the paper industry
anti-competitive laws have produced a hideous government bureaucracy based on
throttling personal tastes in recreational pursuits: hemp. In the housing industry
efforts to guarantee a social mix have forced wealth rubbing elbows with poverty,
which has in turn allowed criminal elements to mix freely. The minimum wage has
produced a generation of unemployables and that, coupled with public charity,
has encouraged massive illegal immigration. Income redistribution has produced a
bumper crop of children birthing children. Such a list as this is fertile ground for
extensive expansion as evil after evil follows efforts to find a balance between
personal freedom and its limits as individuals seek their own personal advantage.
"To each according to his need; from each according to his ability" has not been
successful. Witness the Russian agricultural collectives; each worker wished to make
his personal effort produce for himself personal advantage, so he reduced his own
effort in the collective and cast the burden of physical effort on his fellows; the common
good was not sufficient motivation; yet each individual worked his personal holdings
with much greater diligence to satisfy his personal needs. Witness the current travail
within France; established people have their guarantees; the young want their share;
it is difficult to see how there can be enough to provide all with comparable amenities.
And there must ever be a question who will be motivated to invent and develop.
With people constituted as they are, socialism cannot succeed.
Unbridled ambition, where each individual seeks what he wants heedless of the
consequences to others, will predictably lead to conflict, depletion and other ills.
Anarchy as a government style is equally impossible to maintain.
Governments are necessary to organize our efforts, to spur the indolent to constructive
activity, to contain the ambitions of others. The most successful form of government
discovered by our species allows each person to pursue his own dreams within proscribed
limits and enjoy the benefits that accrue from his efforts. In application we must find
collective wisdom adequate to describe and enforce the limits that are necessary to assure
that all have equal access and opportunity to pursue each his own dream.
Whether and when to have children is and should be the result of a series of
personal decisions of each couple and total world population is the sum total of
the results of those personal decisions. But in society as a whole, a culture that
produces fewer children is doomed to extinction and will be replaced by
whichever culture produces more children. Total world population has been
inexorably increasing and, were it not for the results of science in finding ways
to increase agricultural yield, would have already outrun its food supply. No one
questions that there is an upper limit to food production, even if every square
inch of Earth is placed into production and means are found to avoid depleting
the soil of essential minerals.
In our world of today those of European descent, who have, according to history, produced
the wealth-generating machinery we enjoy today, are in decline, while other cultures are
ascending. Yet total world population continues to rise. I don't have numbers that allow
extrapolation on which cultures are on the path to replacing which. Rome rose and fell;
the Byzantine Empire rose and fell; other cultures succeeded to dominance. It is impossible
to predict which, if any, of today's cultures will be dominant in a few centuries.
I have heard projections that the world population will level off at 12 billion; a few
years ago the projection was 10 billion. I have trouble grappling with space for such
amenities as parks (and such as the Grand Canyon) with more than twice the present
population. And I am distraught at the ability of natural processes to reject to space
the heat produced by the energy spent in the heightened living standards of that time.
Unquestionably the world's average temperature will be driven upward, likely
significantly, while the surface area of ground is reduced by elevated sea levels.
It seems reasonable that every person would want for himself the comforts and
conveniences that technology makes available. I have wondered if Earth contains
among its resources enough copper or iron or uranium or other metals to allow
washing machines, air conditioners, vehicles and other amenities (and enough power
to drive them) for every unit of society (family or whatever organization becomes
dominant). And I have wondered what will become of the offal. I make no
projection; every device has limited life and must be both disposed of and replaced.
No projection is possible that does not include recycling as the norm.
Eradication of disease seems a laudable objective. And, for those alive today and
watching their own offspring, it certainly would reduce a cause of travail. But, if
it merely makes possible an accelerated increase in population, it holds the prospect
for ever greater misery unless an infrastructure and economic engine are developed
to support those added numbers.
If we wish to forestall collapse of Earth's civilization, we must reduce the pressure of
ever-increasing population (which demands increasingly unwise development), insist each
(corporate or individual) citizen practice charitable stewardship, and find some means to
apportion the bounty of Nature so each may receive his -- diminished -- share.
How could it happen? Oil and coal and methane long since depleted. Metals and
other materials recycled with scarcely any ores left worthy of mining. Was it war
that emptied Earth of what we now need? Was it unchecked population growth
that demanded sacrifice of all natural growth in favor of food? Was it the offal of
human habitation that overwhelmed the natural forces of decay and renewal? How
could intelligent, thinking creatures have permitted such devastation as to make their
world such a challenge? Would our forebears have deliberately sought such
impoverishment that they are the grateful dead?
Scientists are beginning to consider what extra-terrestrial events may produce
conditions on Earth that are inimical to continuation of life here. Civilization may,
of course, destroy itself as a consequence of its own achievements by, for instance,
massive accumulations of offal or unwise weather control or a struggle for political
control.3 To view footnote,
click here. And, lest we be careful in our stewardship, life for
future generations may be rendered so empty and sterile that we would not ourselves
wish to be part of it. If you subscribe to the notion the human soul survives death, you
may rest assured your own future will be affected by the legacy of your actions in this
life; it is in your own selfish interest to be active in assisting Nature to maintain a
healthy balance between exploitation and renewal..
Every living thing makes its demands on the environment. It seems that the nature of
Nature is for each species to expand its numbers to the extent of its available food
supply. Other species are limited to what undisturbed Nature makes available,
but man tills the soil and husbands animals to augment what foods undisturbed
Nature provides. Our species has increased in numbers to the extent that our
science has harnessed Nature to increase the productivity of food sources, and
our continued viability depends on both the efforts of scientists in developing
more productive variations of foods, the wisdom of politicians in maintaining an
atmosphere of tranquility, and the unfailing cycles of Nature.
My projection is that, lest our species harness its numbers, population will grow
to the extent that people are warehoused (stacked one above the other), animal life
will be limited to pets and food sources, and plant life will be limited to food
crops. And unleashing products of our own productivity may poison Earth's
surface to the extent that cities (if, indeed, life may continue at all) are entirely
within plastic domes while unrelenting storms ravage the barren and hostile
desert outside.
But Nature may provide weather events that cause such severe disruption of normal
activities that society is hobbled, such as massive earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunami,
hurricanes or volcanic eruptions on a massive scale, or asteroid impact. I awoke this
morning with this possibility in mind, thinking what is within man's capability to ensure
against termination of life on this planet resulting from such events. Were we to
establish in various mountain meadows (possibly in the Rockies, the Alps, the Himalayas
and the Andes) small (a few hundred population of the intellectually gifted) self-contained
communities, rotating our best minds for seasons there, we could have the maximum
possible assurance of survival of at least remnants of our species. The United Nations,
due to its ineptitude and corruption, could not be expected to organize or operate such
communities, so we must depend on private foundations to recognize the need and select
their projects. Of course all available knowledge, selected seeds and creatures, and
enough rudimentary equipment to assist in re-establishing technology, would be maintained
in each community.4 To view footnote,
click here.
But I have a greater concern for upsetting civilization than man's unthinking
blundering to the brink of survival through a calamity of his own making; it lies
in unbridled lusts and ambitions of the Hitlers and Saddams and bin Ladens.
We hear of weapons of mass destruction, of H5N1 avian flu, of ebola, of dirty
bombs, of germ warfare, of anthrax: much of it in the possession of people
seeking power (mastery over others). It seems that, if they can't have their way,
nothing else matters. I shudder at the prospect of two or more leaders wholly
consumed by ambitions of power and armed with such weapons.
The dire consequences of a nuclear war are so great that it becomes simply
unthinkable, while realism suggests it is inevitable. Even if confined to a small
area, the results are apt to be wide-spread. Of those affected I question they
will find it attractive to emerge from their bunkers, although there will always
be a few hardy enough to struggle to survive. I have no basis for speculating
to what extent the oxygen content of the atmosphere may be depleted, or the
amount of radioactivity that will be washed into the oceans with its effect on
the food chain. Mutations aplenty would be expected among animals as well
as humans, and those obviously ill-equipped to compete in the newly-harsh
environment must not survive to become burdens on those who are prepared
to compete. The future of the species would demand that the best and best
adapted become the parents of succeeding generations.
Prudence dictates that we give some thought to the future4
To view footnote,
click here. and establish priorities. Should we successfully
forestall disaster, the future holds promise of peace, prosperity, beauty --
always with struggles and always with the unknown.
Evidently many discussions here are interrelated with essays
on specific topics, to the extent I have accumulated here a list of links with
comments that should allow you to select with efficient use of your time.
To link, click on the underscored word or phrase;
afterward, use your BACK button.
I have trod a long path on Earth to reach the point I feel adequate to compose such
a document as this Social Contract. I admit that it has an underlying religious
orientation. The path I trod is described as my
odyssey. It has led to a religious concept I call
Rational Theism, and I have presumed to suggest a
religious sect to foster teaching the commonality of science and religion.
A number of ideas that have been called to my attention are described as
versions of reality. While I feel the
established church is derelict in dealing with the
consequences of its own promotion and should extend its influence into
contemporary concerns, the House of Man
suggests a common base for all religions.
I promised a link to discussions of quality of life
and object of affection. They are included in an essay on
abortion. You may link to the essay itself or these two topics by clicking on
the underlined words.
I have been distressed by the conflict between atheists and theists, especially in notions
of evolution, which many people take as demonstration of the validity of atheism. Fossil
evidence, as well as the amazing complexity of living organisms, seems to me to suggest
an intelligence has been involved in evolution. I am
concerned that present and future practice of medicine will undermine the
physical and mental prowess of our species. I have
incorporated a brief history of the universe and Earth
and life on Earth, as well as suggesting a contrary view of the
origin of the universe and discussing the possible ending
of civilization, which is partly demonstrated by the
Exxon-Valdez disaster and may be partly insured against by highly developed
remote outposts in such places as mountain meadows.
I have been concerned for contemporary issues such as
abortion (and the implied culture of life as
exemplified by the Terri Schiavo case), drugs,
education in general,
encouragement of gifted individuals and display of
the Ten Commandments as an instrument for moral instruction.
Much brief comment on essentially political issues appears on
domestic issues, foreign policy issues and
religious aggressiveness (including a brief outline of
Islam). I have proposed a system of plebiscite as a
means of increasing the happiness of peoples with their governments. And I have
presumed to suggest a number of amendments to our
Constitution that would serve to restore government practices to be consistent
with a love of personal liberty.
I have been interested in such forward-looking topics as a
phonetic alphabet with which most languages could be rendered,
reform of the English language to simplify and make
misunderstandings more difficult, a more efficient
arithmetic using base-16, fully automatic
driving to relieve the driver of the need for attention to the road, sources of
energy to power civilization,
biodiesel using agricultural crops,
algae as a source of biodiesel and ethanol.
I have also included a chapter from my book Love to Live and Live to Love
giving emergency information everyone needs on
heart attack and stroke plus an extended quotation of
affirmations for committed couples.
To go to the index for my web site, click here.
Should something in this essay trigger in you a desire to discuss further some aspect of
my monologue, an e-mail with subject "I read your post about . . ." (to pass my spam
filter) may be directed to me by clicking here.
1 Footnote #1:
The arena of religion offers another example of 'accident of personal history.' Such as
chancing into a meeting, by invitation or curiosity or escape from bad weather or . . .,
and becoming intrigued by the presentation there. No intention to become involved in
religious activity, certainly no exercise of reason in selecting the audience you joined.
2 Footnote #2:
3 Footnote #3:
4 Footnote #4:culture of life
beginning of the individual
infancy and childhood senior citizens
end of life
suicide and assisted suicide disabilities
risky sports and professions
athletics and the future racism
adulthood and adult issues
greed and motivation prohibitions
women's rights
social justice governments
<>Ken Wear commenced entry Nov '05;
links & comments on links at end
If these presentations help you solidify your opinion, they have served their purpose.
Topic ------ Topic ------ Topic religion
sexuality
marriage and prosa href="#popu">world population
end of civilization Religion
The most fundamental question of religion is whether there is an aspect of self that lies
outside the physical structure of this body. For myself there is, and life without deity is an
absurdity; I cannot comprehend life without deity -- by whatever name you choose. But
you must choose what is worthy of your belief. I am today.
My future is in the hands of deity; only His works endure.
Sexuality
Although our genes sometimes seem confused, predominant sex forms are either
clearly male or clearly female. Strength of sexual desire, however, runs the gamut
from extremely active to disinterest in intercourse or actual revulsion at the thought
of two bodies coming together in acknowledgment of their sex. Let me set aside
discussion of those whose bodies are physically unclear in their sex; my understanding
is that they are relatively rare.
Marriage and prostitution
I am distressed at the flippant, cavalier attitude many take toward production of
their replacements in this world. Of course, sex is an instinctive drive, with men
urged on by the pressure of accumulation of sperm in their bodily organs and women
-- having no comparable accumulation -- seeking satisfaction for other reasons. But
we are endowed with brains that supposedly reckon with consequences.
Athletics and the future
The push to be dominant in athletics, considering our recent gain in understanding
genetics and chemical enhancement of individual performance, is bound to produce
some interesting results. Use of steroids to increase muscle mass (strength?) has been
common for years. In the recent Winter Olympics, and in the earlier summer games,
cheating by way of chemistry (as well as old-fashioned favoritism) hit the headlines.
Chemicals that leave a residue in the blood can be detected, and there is the continuing
balance of the challenges to find chemicals that cannot be detected and to find means of
detection. But genetic changes are unlikely to be detectable, even in analyses of DNA
(in the absence of gross abnormalities).
Extreme Sports, Risky Behavior and Dangerous Professions
If you are one who wishes to destroy himself: It is your life. That is your
privilege. Don't impose on me.
Disabilities
We do the best we can.
Beginning of the Individual Person
At what point in the progression that gives rise to the person does the social contract
come into play? What shall we use as a marker that a human person is present?
Mental activity? Ability to feel pain? An organized grouping of cells? Where in the
chain of development can we say with assurance there is a being who must be nurtured,
a being in which society (or government) has a legitimate interest? Where is that
magical moment before which a cell is just a cell, a natural product of the routine
operation of physical law, and after which we must recognize its equality as a member
of the human family and hence warrants the protections we afford citizens?
Culture of life
We do have minds; we do observe; we can assess the probable worth of an individual to
himself. Let me assert: It is folly to insist that all products of sexual activity should be
aggressively protected and nurtured until that grouping of cells dies on its own, whether
pre-natal or in old age.
Infancy and Childhood
To what extent do parents "own" their children? The state? Birth is one event in
the continuum of nurture from fertilization of the ovum until a new person is
capable of acting independently. Our moral structure is deeply rooted in an
unfathomable past; in modern times birth is the event after which the state assumes
a life is due society's protection. Yet the mother (or parents) are expected to
exercise responsibility for continued nurture including meeting physical needs,
education and instilling values. Were this not true, the woman is relegated to the
status of incubator for the state.
Adulthood and Adult Issues
Choices: One aspect of the ability to choose is the possibility of mistake. Is it
preferable to risk mistake or to refrain from choosing?
1) Those who are temporarily down on their luck but sincerely wish -- to the extent of
self-sacrifice -- to become self-sufficient.
2) Those who have no wish for self-sufficiency and are content to survive as best they
can on public or private charity, and
3) Those possessed of addiction to drugs or alcohol to a degree they become a public
nuisance.
(Criminal elements I have discussed as Dangerous Professions.)
Of these:
(1) If you reflect on the spirit as separable
from the body upon death and the possibility for that same spirit to live another life in
another body at some point in the future, then protracted effort to extend the life of
someone condemned to death is merely delaying his spirit's opportunity for a new start.
(2) Consider the randomness of criminal activity and reflect on the number of deaths
produced by criminals in pursuit of their criminal activity. Compare that with the number
of felons condemned to execution. While we don't wish to execute an innocent person, we
should seek balance. Why should we expend tremendous resources and time to 'protect
the rights' of someone whose guilt is beyond question? Where's the sense of balance?
1) teaching boys safe masturbation, and
2) school girls having to defend their virginity,
I know of a certainty which I prefer.
If you have examined my essay on churches, you recognize this is only one suggestion in
the direction of securing healthy attitudes on the part of all of us.
Women's Rights
I have wondered at what point in the evolution of our species it was recognized
there was a connection between sexual intercourse and arrival of an infant.
Undoubtedly the relation between swollen belly and infant was recognized early,
possibly when there was only a rudimentary language. The custom of one man
bound to one woman likely followed shortly after recognizing the link between
intercourse and infant since it appears to be the most effective way to maintain
peace among tribal members.
Greed and Motivation
I have an idealistic bent and am still distressed at how the U.S. took the lands of the
aborigines, displaced them and dealt with them. And I was never a Zionist. But I
am forced to recognize that geographies have been imposed by force because one
group wanted what the other had. I have proposed plebiscite as a means of making
people happy with their governments, even though that does not address distribution
of the land on which those peoples live. I wonder if it is possible for our species to
be content to develop what is already theirs, or must they forever seek to take by force
whatever they perceive as desirable.
Prohibitions
We tease ourselves when we think passing a law or two will end the chase by
scientists for knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge. Such things as
cloning, use of embryonic stem cells, nuclear weapons, and other sources of
modern fears cannot be barred from exploration; the human animal is such that
prohibiting the practice only drives its adherents to places where they can pursue
their quest. Prohibition may retard or drive underground, but it
cannot prevent.
Racism
We each prefer to interact with persons similar to ourselves: That is a fundamental
fact of society. But we are thrown into the company of others quite unlike ourselves.
Public charity
Private charity works; public charity doesn't. Witness the Indian Ocean's tsunami
or our southern coast's Katrina followed by Ryan and Wilma.
Senior Citizens
To what end an extended life span? Is it simply patiently waiting for life to end,
realizing you must fill your day somehow until that time, or does it open other
possibilities for enrichment or contribution?
End of Life
It is, after all, my life. Each of us strikes a balance between the rewards life confers
upon us and the physical and emotional costs to bring us those rewards. So long
as rewards outweigh costs -- or there is hope that condition can be restored --
there is reason to wish our life to continue. It is an intensely personal decision,
should that balance become negative, at what point release from consciousness
becomes desirable.
Suicide and Assisted Suicide
I believe in self-determination for those of adequate mental capacity. For the young
who have not yet reached the age of reason those charged with their care must
oversee issues of life support. Each elderly person experiencing mental or physical
decline should be extended the courtesy of honoring his wisdom in choosing to end
his own life, either at his own hand or in soliciting assistance to that end. The younger
but mature ought reflect on their obligations and ability to assist others as well as the
pain and misery their absence would produce. In diagnosed terminal illness the afflicted
should be allowed to choose the life/death tipping point.
Social Justice
The catch phrase has become "Follow the money." I despair that our social or
political structure is capable of assuring equality of either opportunity or result. Even
in our "American experiment," as benevolent as it has proved to be, the individual
framers of our Constitution immediately commenced seeking ways to pervert the
resulting political machine to their personal advantage.
Governments
Even in hunter-gatherer societies it was necessary for people to organize themselves
into political units with leaders and specialties of various sorts to provide the goods
and services demanded by that society's members. It should be obvious from the
successes and failures of governments of recent history that it is unlikely the nature
of our species can be altered by legislation and that the success of any society is
ultimately controlled by the motivations of individual members.
World Population
Somewhere I read the statistic, and never questioned it because it seemed so
reasonable: To carry on the family name it takes some 3-1/4 children per couple.
I would suppose that is approximately true for perpetuation of the species. If
everybody born produced his share of children, it would, of course, require
barely more than two children per couple; but many people don't, for
whatever reason, have children.
Environment
Like it or not, we are all in this together. And we are dependent on natural processes
that we cannot control to deliver to us air that is breathable and water that is
drinkable. We can waste, yes; we can poison, yes; but we are dependent on Nature to
provide and to cleanse. In my view mankind is perilously close to (if he has not already
exeeded) the limits of Nature.
Projection of the Future
Assuming Nature does not provide a calamity that wipes the human infestation from the
Earth, what kind of future does our species face on Earth? I see only two possibilities:
1) We will commence to conserve our soil, trees, waterways, oceans, life forms, at a level
that permits Nature to recover a complete closed ecology, or 2) what humans remain
will live in huge self-sufficient enclosures amidst an arid land of blistering heat and
bruising storms. Enclosures because no life forms larger than bacteria live outside in
the barren desert where once flourished trees and farms and grasslands and where
rivers are fouled so badly it is futile to clear them. The spoils of unchecked
exploitation. And bruising storms because there are no growths to check the winds --
only what dust remains that has not been collected in the cess pools that were once
oceans.
Since I have not run across the idea of 'accident of personal history,' let me clarify with
an example: My son was very shy as a teenager, and he was involved in soccer so he
was frequently exposed in a dressing room to nakedness and the impromptu shenanigans
of adolescent boys. Adolescence is that time of sexual awakening and commencement
of the flow of hormones; had he experimented with sex and found it satisfying he may
never have pursued dating girls but been content, in his shyness, to satisfy his sexual
urges with other consenting boys. An 'accident of personal history.' (He married and
has given me two grandchildren.) I've no doubt there are many other scenarios: a
disappointed love relationship, lack of or rejection by available girls, awkwardly-sized
organs, . . ., that lead to homosexual behavior.
Evidently such a claim requires justification. I refer you to the second paragraph
in the earlier segment on sexuality. To view that, click here.
Using your BACK button twice should return you
here and then to the text.
And the Lifeboat Foundation has studied the various means by which civilization may
destroy itself, such as engineered viruses (for which our immune systems have no
defense), abandoned nuclear weapons and fissionable materials, various products of
nanotechnology such as self-replicating viruses or bacteria (or some mechanisms).
For more information on the Lifeboat Foundation, you may go to their web site by
clicking here.
I have commenced a delineation of the "mountain meadow" concept. It will require
minds other than mine to complete the topic, but here is a start. It appears as
Resurgence of Earth's Civilization. To view it,
click here.