Thoughts for the day

Over the years I’ve written various ‘thought for the day’ articles, some published on the internet, some read on the radio. Here are a selection

Time to ditch Jack Sparrow’s moral compass?

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

I read a headline this morning that the UK government is paying strip clubs and lap dancing bars thousands of pounds to employ young people.  http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1376579.ece What sort of moral compass are they travelling by.  It is Jack Sparrow’s compass: it points at whatever you feel like.

Many of the young people I meet today have already succumbed to the temptations of smoking (tobacco and weed), drinking (to excess), internet pornography and instant gratification sex.  Many have anger management problems, are bored easily, struggle to see any purpose in life, and find it hard to get and keep jobs.  And I live in ‘middle England’, I can’t imagine what it is like in the most deprived areas.

Who can blame them?

We have structured our society so that we take our children away from their parents and put them in schools where the only adult interaction is focused on learning facts that will help them pass exams.  We have structured our economy such that parents have to work long hours, often at weekends, so our less affluent families have little time for child parent interaction.  We have so regulated schools with ‘child protection’ that the few adults who do interact with children are not allowed even to touch them, and who live in fear of accusation of child molesting. We have done our best to mock and marginalise religious institutions who try to suggest that some form of restraint might be beneficial.

We have put our children in an institutional ‘Lord of the Flies’ scenario, and added the instant gratification of TV, internet, and readily available drugs (legal and illegal).

Surely it is time for a serious rethink.

Instead of sticking plaster politics and abdicating any vision of the future to ‘market forces’, let’s try to define what we want society to be like, and then see what needs to be done to get there.

Please share your ideas of what an ideal society would look like.

Scientific support for The Rainbow Economy

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

A link to a fascinating talk below.  The beginning is rather depressing, but the finish supports the solution proposed in The Rainbow Economy.

Do listen to it all.

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean.html?utm_source=email&source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ios-share

 

The Rainbow Economy

/ Minimalist Christian / 1 Comment

My three posts “Austerity is working?” I, II, and III have highlighted that there is an inherent injustice in our world today.  And Ian (comments) tell us that even in economic terms austerity is not working.  What is the solution?

I reminded us of the amazing and bloodless transition from an Apartheid regime to a Rainbow Nation that was led by Nelson Mandela.  It worked because he managed to change the hearts and minds of the people to repent of and forgive past injustices, and be reconciled to one another.  He changed the attitudes of the people of the nation of South Africa.  He, Desmond Tutu and others reminded people that everyone, black or white, was equally valuable; not equal (as in identical) but Sons of the same Father.  His vision was a nation which was a single community which treated everyone as a brother, irrespective of colour.  Mandela changed the rules of the game – he change people’s attitudes.

Economics is about predicting the outcome of different actions and regulations. Predictions are based on the response of individuals to those actions educated by the response in similar situations in the past.  The distribution of wealth shown in my earlier posts is a result of the initial distribution of wealth, economic rules and regulations, and people’s attitudes. As a simple formula:

Distribution of wealth today = Fn(Distribution yesterday, Economic Policies, Attitudes)

We have seen that the trend of today’s equation is to distribute the wealth more towards the rich.  We have seen that most people would prefer a more even (but not uniform) distribution.

But it seems that the only variable in the equation above that anyone advocates changing is Economic Policies.  Whether someone is an extreme capitalist or extreme socialist, focus is on tax and spending regulations and regimes – about different Economic Policies.

But what about Attitudes?

I recall a radio interview with one of Margaret Thatcher’s colleagues or friends, asking how she reconciled her hard economic policies with her Christian beliefs.  The reply was that privately she looked to charity to ease the discomfort of those who suffered.  But of course it would have been impossible for her, or the tough government to tell the nation to be charitable, it would reek of hypocrisy.  Instead, her government and policies changed attitudes in that they gave individuals permission to be selfish and greedy – echoed today in Boris Johnson’s speech headlined “Boris Johnson invokes Thatcher spirit with greed is good speech”.

Ian made another comment, that in today’s South Africa there is an “endemic entitlement mentality including laziness, victim mentality, and bitterness that redistribution has not brought what the poor expected”

From these two example. at either end of the wealth spectrum, attitudes focus on self-interest. Such attitudes might be justified by comments like:  “It’s not my job to care about anyone else – that’s the government’s responsibility” or “It’s the government’s responsibility to give me a job – it’s my right, I shouldn’t have to suffer”.

In the past humans lived in groups and tribes where everyone knew each other and everyone looked out for each other.  People lived in communities and all felt responsible for the good of the community as a whole.  There were expectations on individuals to contribute to the community and to help each other if they found someone in need. Relationships were considered important (you had to live with each other after a dispute) and everyone pulled together to make the community work.  

Today we live in states where (generalising) we look to the government to look out for others.  We don’t really care about the community as a whole so long as we are alright.  Relationships matter less because we can always move somewhere else if we fall out with our neighbours, move jobs if we fall out with our boss, and change partners if we fall out with our partner.  Our role in and value to society is as a ‘consumer’, and policies focus on giving the consumer what he wants.  We have expectations of our government, and having paid our taxes we don’t really see that we should do anything more to help them. As long as we as individuals are comfortable we see no need to do so.  We have abdicated our social responsibility to the state.

I think it is time to take it back.

Our attitude needs to change from that of selfish individual consumer.  We need to become once again a member of a community, a member of society who feels responsible for society as a whole.

We need to change our expectations of ourselves and others to do what we can to help each other.  We need to embrace the attitude of “what can I contribute” and respond according to our abilities.  In such a climate we would see for instance Mr Cameron the individual behaving as if we are indeed “all in this together” and using his personal fortune to benefit others.  We would see those who are on state benefits asking what they can do to contribute to society – and being given opportunities to contribute.

We need to value each person equally and encourage each to grow to fulfil their potential. Love has been defined as exerting oneself for the well-being of others.  We need to love more – achieved by looking outwards.  Oswald Chambers said that ‘Self-pity is of the devil”.  Self-pity in difficult circumstances leads to bitterness and a victim mentality.  Self-pity in comfortable circumstances prevents doing what is right for fear of our own needs in the future.

This new attitude is not completely absent from society (see links at the bottom), but it is rarely promoted and needs boldness and courage because it is so counter cultural.  But let’s all be part of the revolution.  A revolution in attitudes rather than government.  A revolution that says “we are all going to make our society healthy …. Starting with me!”  A revolution that calls us to “love one another as we love ourselves”.

So where can we start?

Take a look around and ask “what could I do to help?”  “How can I spend my time better?”  “How can I spend my money better?”  “Who can I help who is struggling?”  “Can I be doing something more valuable than watching TV?”  There are so many possibilities. Can I help a young person contribute to society and earn some money?  What organisations or charities could I help?  Can I mentor someone?  Can I visit a lonely old person, or pay their heating bills?  Now I’m retired, what can I volunteer to help with?  Since I have no time with my busy job, can I support important work financially?

But also, encourage others to do the same.  When our friends grumble at the government for this or that, challenge them to think differently and take back some personal responsibility.  We need to give each other permission to help society, to expect it rather than be surprised by it.  We all need to change mindsets.  We need to spread the word!

And of course we need to let the government – our representatives know what we want them to truly represent.  We need to let them know what sort of economy we want, but we also need to demonstrate that we are ready to contribute too.

So, we are not helpless observers.  Each one of us can make a difference.  Let’s try.

Here as promised are some links which show some of what is happening already:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-official-statistics-show-resurgence-in-volunteering-as-millions-more-give-their-time-to-help-others

http://www.ivr.org.uk/ivr-volunteering-stats

In Britain, philanthropy is more dependent than ever on the generosity of the wealthiest, with the richest 1,000 taking a growing, active and more public role in charitable giving. Even as the latest UK Giving report showed a 20% fall in real terms in the amount the public gave to charity last year, the new Sunday Times Giving List survey showed a more than 20% increase in giving by the wealthy elite.  http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/BusinessRichList/article1246509.ece

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

https://www.cafonline.org/PDF/UKGiving2012Summary.pdf

And finally, for encouragement, some quotes from one who claimed to speak for God:

“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”

“Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.”

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy …. for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”

“Do not worry about your life, what you will eat and drink; or about your body, what you will wear.  Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?”

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?… You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and they you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”

Previous posts:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/austerity-is-working/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/austerity-is-working-iii/

Austerity is working? III

/ Minimalist Christian / 7 Comments

The world economy is in difficulty and has been for many years now.  Debt is embedded in the system: individuals owe money to banks (who live off lending them more), nations owe money to the financial markets. All measures of wealth show that the richest are getting richer and the poorest are getting poorer. (See Austerity is working II).

People agree that the ideal is not a flat distribution of wealth.  They think that the distribution of wealth favours the rich too much, but in reality it favours the rich much more than we realise:

wealth distribution

But is there a problem with this? It depends on your personal philosophy.

For instance, if I think it is right that one human being, through no effort of its own (e.g as a result of who its parents are and where they happen to live) should be 1 million times richer than another, then this data in itself will not worry me.

Similarly, if instead of comparing myself to those who have more income than me I compare myself to those with less then I will not enjoy any feelings of being ‘hard done by’.

Opinions vary, but it seems that around $50000 is an ideal income for happiness. http://www.learnvest.com/knowledge-center/the-price-of-happiness-50000-123/ and a 2012 UK headline stated that “Families need £36,800 to live acceptably, study says” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18770783  Anyone earning more than that is likely to feel very comfortable.

So, in the rich West, most people are basically happy most of the time, cocooned by an income where financial concern is limited to sustaining the present level of comfort rather than worrying where the next meal is coming from.  Most of the time the inequality of wealth doesn’t really impact, apart from leading to a few grumbles and jealous thoughts about those who earn more than we do. Passivity rules until or unless a crisis occurs which affects us as individuals, and then we get to see how difficult the situation really is for those who the system exploits and tramples… the poorest.

As I said in my earlier post (Austerity is working?) the current crisis has not noticeably affected the rich.  Maybe there has been some mild discomfort for the better off, but the brunt of the austerity is taken, as usual, by the poorest.

Most of us realise that this is profoundly unjust.

Most of us want something to be done about this, but we look at our politicians and realise that they simply don’t understand.  They are not even in the ‘mild discomfort’ bracket, and simply cannot empathise with those who have NO money at all to feed their family; those who have to get the basics for survival from the multiplying food banks.  The people want the politicians to understand, hence petitions challenging MPs to experience living on low income:  http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

The gulf in understanding is emphasised when the rich Mayor of London advocates greed:

Johnson called for the rich to be hailed for their contribution to paying for public services as he said that the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of income tax. “That is an awful lot of schools and roads and hospitals that are being paid for by the super-rich. So why, I asked innocently, are they so despicable in the eyes of all decent British people? Surely they should be hailed like the Stakhanovites of Stalin’s Russia, who half-killed themselves, in the name of the people, by mining record tonnages of coal?”

The mayor added: “It seems to me that though it would be wrong to persecute the rich…. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/boris-johnson-thatcher-greed-good

What exacerbates the injustice is the despair that there is no hope of changing the system.  Those who have the power are those who benefit from the present system, and they have no intention of changing it.  The democratic process which in theory would allow the people to choose honourable and just leaders offers no serious alternative.  The traditional parties are basically indistinguishable, and so people begin to jump at any possibly credible alternative, such as the right wing UKIP party – not realising that the basis of the policies of UKIP is as flawed as the traditional parties.

And here we approach the reason for our problem. Economics works by trying to predict the behaviour of the masses to different financial laws and environments. And behaviour of the masses responds to the moral climate generated by the media and politicians. Changing the moral climate is a necessary part of the solution, but at present there are few trying to instigate the essential global climate change.

Governments are afraid of doing anything to damage the economy.  They will only introduce humane policies if the pressure against the injustices of the system becomes too strong: if there is sufficient discomfort that we ordinary people are jogged out of our passivity; and when the politicians are at risk of losing their power.  Today, ordinary people are stirring, but as yet they don’t see any way of ousting the politicians.  In the past, these sorts of frustration have led to revolution and bloodbath.

Is there any alternative?

For an answer I look at the most recent success of humanity over greed and selfishness.  I look at the transition from an evil apartheid regime ruling South Africa to a Rainbow Nation.  I look to what made the difference between a bloody revolution and a peaceful change.

Mandela realised that trying to force a powerful opponent who had suppressed and oppressed millions of fellow human beings to hand over power by violence would lead to immense human tragedy.  The mind-set of all oppressors includes fear of retribution, indeed, doesn’t justice demand retribution on the oppressor?  Doesn’t justice demand an angry and violent response to injustice?  That is the response of human nature.  And if you are like me, you will have an inner core of anger at the injustice in our country today.  It would feel right to ‘persecute the rich’, and the frustration at not being able to do so makes the anger and bitterness deeper.  We are justified in feeling that – justice demands a fairer system.

But that is not the way.  “An eye for an eye makes everyone blind”.

Mandela changed the hearts and minds of those in power.

The first step was to jog the world out of passivity, to show the world the oppression and to campaign for justice.  The South African government could no longer claim ignorance about their unjust position.  They realised that apartheid was untenable and so the barrier to change moved to one of fear of retribution if they were to lose power.  We see the beginnings of that same fear in Boris Johnson’s comment that “it would be wrong to persecute the rich” – but I think we are in the situation where world leaders are still convincing themselves that the present system is OK.  “Economic Apartheid” is working just fine!

Mandela’s second step was to graciously talk with those in power.  He was willing to forgive their past injustice, and to lead his followers to forgive.  He was not prepared to accept future injustice, future oppression of either the blacks or whites by the other group.  He presented the vision of a rainbow nation, and inspired both blacks and whites to embrace that vision.  Mandela gave up justified bitterness for the sake of the people, and he taught his nation to do the same.  We need to learn from his approach.

So where are we today?  We know that Economic Apartheid is unjust, but too many people have adopted the Johnson mantra ‘greed is good’, or are not sufficiently discomfited to shift from passivity.  There is not yet enough voice crying out against economic injustice, and there are too many who justify it or ignore it.  That needs to change.  You and I need to change.  We need to speak out.

Then we need a vision for a “Rainbow Economy”, and a change in mind-set that underpins it.  That will be the topic of a future post.

………………………………………………..

Related links:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/austerity-is-working/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/

To ensure that you hear about the Rainbow Economy, click the ‘follow’ button.

 

Austerity is working? II

/ Minimalist Christian / 10 Comments

Some items that I heard on the radio driving home – excuse any imprecision, I had my hands on the wheel and did not take notes:

  • In the past year, the top 1% incomes have risen by around 35%, everyone else has risen by around 0.5%.   Economists are debating whether this signifies and economic recovery.
  • Quantitative easing puts money into the hands of the already very rich, in the hope that it will trickle down to the rest of the population.  So far we have seen an increase in the number of houses exchanged for over £1million, and the highest price ever paid for a work of art.
  • No central bank is likely to be bold enough to stop quantitative easing in the future.

I struggle to understand how, in a supposed democracy, this fits with austerity working. The poorer are getting poorer and the richer are getting richer.  How can a civilized world accept this?

See the following for more.  This is a global problem.

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/austerity-is-working/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU

And some alternatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

http://www.robinhoodtax.org/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/basic-economics/

See also:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/austerity-is-working-iii/

Don’t forget to ‘follow’ to hear more…

A fresh understanding of Grace

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

St Paul asked the rhetorical question “Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace?”  He then went on to answer with complicated and metaphorical language about being buried with Christ through baptism.  But I read this just after reading a facebook post from someone I care about behaving in a way that frankly won’t bring them happiness, and is simply satisfying their lustful urges. Looking at how I felt puts a new and simpler perspective on the question.

Let’s take it as read that God is love, and that he loves each one of us deeply.  We also need to understand that sin harms us deeply.  It may satisfy an immediate urge, but it harms us.  In the same way that it saddens me to see those I love harming themselves, it must sadden God so much more to see us harming ourselves.  Yet God still loves us, and in the same way that I still care about the person above, he cares about us.  I will not reject that person, and God will not reject us.  But it saddens Him so much that he was prepared to see Jesus tortured and killed on the cross to try to get through to us.

So if St Paul’s language seems confusing, just put yourself in God’s place and imagine how you would feel seeing your beloved son or daughter self-harming.  You would long for them to give up their life of sin, and return to your loving arms.  If they wanted to make a fresh start,  you would do whatever it takes to wipe their slate clean.  And that is just what God has done for us.

That’s why we shouldn’t keep on sinning; it causes God more pain and sadness and it does us no good either.

Simple.

Austerity is Working?

/ Minimalist Christian / 7 Comments

“Austerity is Working” proclaims the headline in The Sunday Times.

Why does this make me angry?  Shouldn’t I be glad that this pain that we are ‘all’ going through is finally working?  After all, ‘we are all in this together’ so isn’t this encouragement to keep taking the treatment?

But what does ‘working’ mean?  Let’s look at some other headline news that I recall recently:

  • More people in work than ever before rely on state support to feed their families
  • Food banks opening and helping thousands (and bizarrely someone claimed that this was a sign of a civilized society, that a few good people try to make up for the ineptitude of the rich)
  • The “lost generation”: young people struggle to find work and purpose.

Is that what we mean by ‘working’?  Surely not.  Let’s look further:

  • 2500 bankers are going to get bonuses of over £1 million
  • 11% pay rise for MPs to take their salaries over £70thousand

If I were cynical I might think that the writer must be referring to the latter two examples.  But no, he is referring to the new god, “the economy”.  This “thing” that we have raised above basic humanity, above compassion, above “loving our neighbour as ourself”.

And who are the priests of this new god?  Not the small people.  Not those who suffered from losing all their savings in the banking crisis, or those whose money bailed out the banks.  Not those who have to pay the extra ‘bedroom tax’.  Not those who are now going to have to work to 66 or older just to feed themselves.  Not those who frequent the foodbanks and rely on state support.

The priesthood are the wealthy.

Compared to many, I am wealthy.  I could pay more tax and it would be no more than a minor inconvenience. But it makes me ashamed that we have a government who would rather tax the poor than risk offending the rich.  Why do we not have a government who would close the budget deficit through taxing the higher paid, or tackling obscene bonuses, and a rich class who would willingly support them?

I have not suffered at all in this economic crisis.  I continue not to suffer.  And neither do any of our MPs, or any of those who administer the economy.  Neither does Mr Johnson, who openly advocates greed as good.

I am ashamed, but helpless.  I cannot see any political party that would change things.  They all worship at the same altar.

I do what I can for those around me, and I’m sure you do to – but it’s not enough.  It’s time for a new politics.  It’s time for another Mandela, or Gandhi; time for a statesman not a politician.

The nation waits, but where is such a leader to be found?

—————————————————————

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/basic-economics/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/

Mitochondrial donation – some concerns

/ Minimalist Christian / 2 Comments

The UK government has decided to consult publicly on the introduction of regulations to allow mitochondrial donation.

I suspect that at the majority of people in the UK have no idea what mitochondrial donation is, what the risks and technical issues are, or what the ethical considerations might be. I wasn’t until very recently!

This short note attempts to give a very brief introduction to the concept and raise some considerations that might inform the discussion.  It is not an expert paper – I am not an expert, but it is an overview to prompt further thought and discussion by the majority of UK citizens, who are also not experts.  A source of information on the topic is “Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review”.

What is Mitochondrial donation?

The majority of human DNA is contained in the cell nucleus, however some is contained in the mothers mitochondria – so called Mitochondrial DNA.  Mutations or abnormalities in mitochondrial DNA (as in all DNA) can lead to disorders in the developing offspring.  Since these disorders are due to the DNA, they are not curable.

“They are progressive, can be very seriously debilitating and disabling. They may also cause miscarriage and stillbirth, death in babies, children and young people, or severe symptoms which onset in adulthood. The symptoms and the age and severity at which they are experienced vary widely between patients, which can make diagnosis difficult. Mitochondrial disorders may affect one organ at a time – for example resulting in blindness or heart failure – or may affect several areas of the body at the same time. Mothers can pass on mitochondrial disorders without having experienced symptoms themselves, which in some cases may mean that they are not aware that they carry mutated mitochondrial DNA that can cause disorders in their children.”[i]

Mitochondria are separate ‘bags’ within a cell, and so can be separated and removed from a cell.  They can be transferred from cell to cell, and so in theory the mitochondria from a parent whose DNA is abnormal can be removed and then replaced with mitochondria from another person who has normal DNA.  The new cell then contains DNA from the female nucleus donor and the father, and a small proportion of DNA from the mitochondria donor.

As with all new technology, implementation is far more difficult than the theory.  However, experimenters believe they are making progress.  Around 30 children worldwide have been born using a technique whereby mitochondria from a donor are injected into the mother cell, providing an excess of mitochondria, in effect trying to dilute the faulty mitochondria.  These trials have indicated a higher than normal incidence of Turners Syndrome (which resulted in miscarriage and a termination), a lack of ovarian development at puberty and short stature.  It may be associated with problems with major organs and mild learning difficulties.

What are some of the risks?

What loving person cannot want to improve the life of another in the best way they can?  If I were a scientist researching mitochondrial diseases I would use all of my expertise to try to find solutions.  In my own job as a design engineer I am continually striving to improve our product, and I sometimes get immensely frustrated by the procedures and processes that are put in place to make sure that new developments are as risk free as possible.  New concepts that I think are very likely to work are often years in development and testing before being introduced into a machine.  But I accept the situation because of the consequences of something going wrong.  A similar situation must apply with Mitochondrial donation.

The amount of testing and refinement that is needed with a new technology depends on the impact if it goes wrong.  Let’s consider some of the impacts if mitochondrial donation were to go wrong.

  • Being genetic, the outcome of the genetic manipulation will be permanently in the gene pool of the descendants.  Our knowledge of how DNA works is still very limited.  Only a few years ago scientists labelled most of the human DNA as ‘junk’, but now controversial recent research is showing that what was previously written off as junk may be important in helping each cell become the type of cell that it needs to be.[ii]  There must be a risk that future generations will suffer unknown and unpredictable consequences of ‘unnatural’ DNA mixing.
  • We really don’t understand how DNA forms our developing body.  We know that a single DNA change can make the difference between a fruit fly having two or four wings, but we don’t know how that happens.  Humans comprise 50 trillion cells, yet our DNA string only contains 3 billion base pairs. That’s more than 10,000 cells per base pair.  We don’t know exactly how so few DNA base pairs can manufacture such a complex entity as a human, although applying engineering principles we can infer that the cell itself must be an intelligent component.[iii]  How will that cell respond to the modified mitochondrial DNA from a donor?  Would it be like running Microsoft software on an Apple computer?
  • The body has evolved to reject unviable embryos.  The trials mentioned above showed that this happens.  Might mitochondrial donation lead to an increase in miscarriages and terminations?  Would the stress and damage to the mother and couple exceed the risk of mitochondrial disease?
  • If mitochondrial donation techniques were to become widespread, but only effective for a proportion cases, what would be the consequence on those parents who still have ‘disabled’ children?  Would the emotional strain be even greater than today?  Would society shun or blame them for having disabled children?
  • We learnt above that often a mother will not know that she has a disorder.  For such parents mitochondrial donation will not be an option, unless there is a universal screening program.  What would be the social and emotional impacts of such a program?

Questioning our assumptions

These are of course only a few of the questions that need to be considered.  However, perhaps it is also important to consider the cultural assumptions that we might be unknowingly making when considering the issues.

A parent will always want the best for their children.  If one were to ask any couple, “would you like a healthy or unhealthy child” then I cannot imagine any couple opting for the latter. However, if you were to ask the parent of a disabled child, “would you rather have Julie or not have Julie” the responses would not be so clear-cut.  If you were to ask “would you rather have Julie but that Julie was not disabled” then the responses would probably lean towards the not disabled Julie.

Anyone who loves others would love to see them fully healthy, intelligent, happy, hard-working, fulfilled, loving and loved, friendly, etc. etc.  Whilst the attributes and character traits of an individual are interlinked, they are not directly and positively correlated.  Health doesn’t lead to happiness.  Intelligence doesn’t lead to being loving or loved.  So we must be wary of concluding that it would have been better if Julie had been born healthy.  She may be more loved, more fulfilled and happier being disabled than she would have been if she had been healthy.  Would Stephen Hawking have become the great physicist that he is if he had not been disabled?

We assume that a long life is better than a short life.  Is this correct?  How do older people think about this?  Are the years in our life more important than the life in our years?

Are we convinced that the end of this life is the end of everything?  If not, then why do we want to keep people from dying? Is it for their sake or ours?

What aspects of life are important, what we produce or the relationships we forge?

Is suffering always a bad thing?  What does evidence suggest?  Would South Africa have successfully transitioned from apartheid to democracy without Mandela suffering years of imprisonment?

In conclusion

This short post was prompted by the UK government’s intention to introduce regulations to allow mitochondrial donation.

We need to question that intention.  This is not an issue to approach lightly and quickly.  Consideration goes beyond the term of a single parliament, and beyond single countries.  I do not feel comfortable that our government, elected by only a small proportion of the population, seems to be intent on adopting a technology which could have severe consequences.

What do you think?

The Author’s Fear

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

For all those of us who write about God, I found the following by George MacDonald in an anthology of 365 readings compiled by CS Lewis.

If I mistake, He will forgive me.  I do not fear him: I fear only lest, able to see and write these things, I should fail of witnessing and myself be, after all, a castaway – no king but a talker; no disciple of Jesus, ready to go with Him to the death, but an arguer about the truth.

A wise reminder!

 

Related articles

Goodness – me!

/ Minimalist Christian / 13 Comments

Do you ever stop to think what you would like on your gravestone when you are dead?  It’s a good way of finding out what we really want to be like.  I don’t think any of us would like to see phrases like:

“Always selfish and greedy”

“Never had time for anyone else”

“Vindictive and hateful”

When we see a new baby, at a christening who would want to think that the baby would grow up to be a thief, or to have a string of husbands who she cheated on and deserted, or to be a child molester.

We know deep down that we want to be good.

In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury described how being good is possible through ‘goodness’, and how supreme goodness is God.  So that desire to be good is actually us wanting to be like God (supreme goodness), to act like God, to be in his image.

St John’s describes in his gospel that God is love.  So when we love one another, our love is possible through love, which is through God.  We are choosing to act like God, to be part of God.

Each of us has the essence of goodness in us, and the essence of love in us.  God is goodness and God is love, so we all have God within us.  Sometimes we choose to ignore goodness and love, and instead choose to be selfish, vindictive or hateful.  But that is not what we want to be – as we found at the start of this post.

The true Christian religion is about helping us to be what we want to be – good and loving.  It is about connecting with that goodness and love within us; God within us.  It is about learning from Christ what goodness and love looks like, and trying to imitate him.

And if you want to be good and loving, then that means that you want to be like God.  Jesus said that ‘if you have seen me then you have seen God’; Jesus represented supreme goodness and love in human form.  So if you want to be good and loving, since Jesus was supremely good and loving, then you want to be like Jesus, and if you want to be like Jesus you can call yourself a Christian.

Christians pray to help make that connection with goodness and love.  Here’s an example of a Celtic prayer from Lindisfarne:

Help me dear Lord to care too much

To love too freely

To pray unceasingly

To forgive endlessly

To laugh fearlessly

To question

To live

To be who I am

To be where I am

To be what I am

To hope

To believe

To reach out my hand

That’s a good prayer, isn’t it?  It’s about connecting with God within us.  It’s asking God to help us be who we want to be.

Do you want to be the sort of person that the prayer describes?  You can take a step closer by praying that prayer.

Related posts

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/an-argument-for-and-definition-of-god/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/