For The Sake Of Our Children

As you sow, so shall you reap.ⁱ

I'm a proud sow and so. I almost called myself a defiant sow and so, but I thought better of it. “Defiant” is a very bellicose word. It suggests a militaristic approach: an angry, arrogant, and aggressive one that is the antithesis of every value I hold. I envision a world in which peace and freedom are the primary characteristics of all humanity.

I believe – as I'm sure you do – that our children should grow up in such a world. It would be a world in which love and fellowship would guide our every move; it would be a world in which Mankindⁱⁱ would be “at one” with all the plants and animals that share our world and, in fact, with the Universe itself. That was the world sought by some friends of mine – a couple – who, in the Woodstock Era, played a major role in the founding of a commune based on these values. The commune was known as Eutopiaⁱⁱⁱ and the founders envisioned a community in which all members were equal and participated in all aspects of the society's life. Not only would the adults be able to promote and experience a moral and ethical life, but their children – and they would come eventually – would mature with only those views which their parents knew to be true, and to be the proper foundation for lives of virtue. Nothing was too good for their children. Nothing was more important.

And the early members of Eutopia were dedicated to the idea that they were all residents of the same sphere, and all shared responsibility for protecting it as well as themselves. Their motto was “Save our world and save ourselves.” And soon enough they became known as SOW And SOs.^iv And so it was that they – and now I – have come to change the world.

First a little about the Eutopia they built: The residential units, which are little more than dormitories, are single storied constructions^v situated on a prairie in South Dakota, not too far from Rapid City. The community is adjacent to the Black Hills and the South Dakota Badlands, and its main structure – which serves as a meeting hall, the seat of “government,” and the site of any “large” congregation – especially a noisy one – is underground, built into one of the foothills. The intent was to place such a site in a location from which loud noises would not emanate. This would be a protection against sound pollution. Since they were living among the wildlife native to the area, it would have been unfair to disturb the true owners of the land in their homes. Similarly, no light escaped from the meeting hall, so as not to be intrusive in this regard. There were skylights, however, so that there would be light during the day with no use of electricity. But they were covered at night.

The dormitories, too, were shuttered at night so no light would escape. Since no radios or television sets were permitted, noise was not a major consideration.^vi And the light was provided by candles, which the residents made themselves. There was electric light – low power consumers such as fluorescent and LED – in the meeting hall, with solar and wind energy for generation of the electricity, as well as with the power provided by a backup generator. It was run using vegetable oils, so as not to require fossil fuels. No official use of animal products was permitted nor was any exploitation of non-human species.^vii Thus they were all vegans and the foods they ate were all home-grown without any animals used for plowing.^viii And they eschewed the use of any fertilizers – the chemical ones were not natural, and the natural ones originated from animals. Plumbing needs for the dorms and the hall were solved with wells^ix for the inflow, and a septic field for the outflow – widely separated, of course.

Food was a major concern. They were all vegan converts but, for the most part, largely unaware of what that meant, and how it was different from vegetarian. So when they learned that honey was forbidden, as well as mayonnaise and many commercial breads and cakes, they had to make some adjustments. There were other strict rules: everything had to be natural and organic; no gluten was permitted nor were there high-fructose corn syrup, fats (especially trans-fats), artificial colors or favors, or anything considered an allergen – especially nuts. And nothing that had been radiated or contained GMO ingredients. Specifically that related to genetically modified plants, since no animal products were permitted.^x They were “green,” and let permitted breads sit until covered with green mold before they ate them. They knew that penicillin came from bread mold, so this was a way of treating some infections. They also used vegetables and fruits rich in anti-oxidants, recognizing that there was oxygen in the air all around and in the air they breathed. It's a problem for which they (now “we”) have not yet found a solution.

I'm one of them now, but things haven't changed much over the years. We keep contagion to a minimum with rubber gloves to protect our hands and cotton elbow-covers which are always worn in case we should cough or sneeze. These, like the rest of our clothing, are laundered using washboard and stones. No artificial soaps or detergents are ever utilized. For our personal needs we use sanitizing liquids, towelettes, and natural soaps with anti-bacterial capabilities. It's a hard life, but our children are worth the sacrifice.

Finally, we teach – no, we emphasize – love and tolerance. We never attack each other,^xi but if we did we would turn the other cheek. We're very much at peace. And we're self-governing. That means that each of us makes his own rules which we value as long as they don't impinge on others. Some may view this as anarchy but we see it as complete freedom. Peace and freedom are what our lives are all about.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Those words were written several months ago but I learned something which I conveyed to the elders and, after lengthy discussion and, ultimately, action by the group, everything has changed. What I learned was what I overheard. It came from our children, who had a council of their own^xii – a council that we established and supported. One of them, one with an iPad^®, informed the rest that virtually everything we taught was nonsense with no scientific basis. The general response was that they all knew that already but didn't want to confront their parents. As soon as they were old enough they planned on moving out and joining the “real world.” They had tolerated this silliness to achieve peace. Soon they would have freedom.

They understood the value of peace, but otherwise they had learned almost nothing from our wisdom. Although many members were ill or had died young, our sacrifices were for naught.

And now, as there is no Utopia, there is no Eutopia.

Next episode: "Nota Bene – Not" –  There is an end to all good (bad and mediocre) things.

I        While that expression derives from Galatians 6.7, it is actually a rephrasing of an older idea originally found in Ecclesiastes 11.1, “Send your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it.” Some translations prefer the word “Cast” rather than “Send,” but the one I used, Tanach, the Stone Edition by Artscroll, chose “Send.” A footnote in this volume reads ”Charity should be given even to strangers; generosity will not go unrewarded.” Later in chapter 11, in verse 4, Kohelet, identified earlier as David's son, King Solomon, speaks both of the man who will never sow and the one who will never reap. A modern of the expression, one somewhat different in implications, is “What goes around comes around.”

ii       And that certainly includes women and children as well, but the masculine form is used because that has been the tradition in the English language, as it is in many other tongues. For this reason it is important to state that wherever a masculine noun or pronoun is used it refers to both sexes and to all ages, unless it is otherwise stated.

iii      This commune was to be ideal, and all of its principles were to be followed. Only those who agreed to them would be allowed to join. The clear delineation of those principles was an important factor in convincing others to commit themselves and to join. Even more so, however, was the dedication of the founders to a goal that appeared to be as close to perfection as possible (while still being achievable). They were charismatic personalities, and their beliefs were so powerful and attractive that those who heard the message were mesmerized by it and yearned-for permission to be a part of the movement. The marijuana also helped.

iv       I myself joined the movement only after a couple of decades. I had not known of its existence originally even though it was organized by some friends, but, ultimately, when I learned about Eutopia, I was completely taken by everything it represented (even though marijuana was no longer a staple there), and I petitioned for membership.

v        Wheelchair accessible.

vi       Some of the younger residents had iPads^® or other electronic devices that were battery-run. They were intellectually harmful and were discouraged, but no one made a fuss as long as they were used quietly.

vii      Any product that had been tested on animals was forbidden. The included most cosmetics and virtually all medicines. We did use traditional formulations and those generally considered safe even though never tested. Also used were vitamins and those preparations that strengthened our immune systems so we wouldn't need FDA approved medicines. Vaccination of the children was rejected both because the vaccines contained animal products and because everyone knew they were unsafe.

viii     They did use corn-oil powered tractors, however initially there was much debate on their use because of the measurement of their engines by horse power. Of course they recognized that they weren't using actual horses, but they also knew that the concept had developed from such use, and they were hesitant to benefit from the original exploitation. Eventually, however, they were accepted, though it was viewed as a compromise of their original principles.

ix       Bottled water was proscribed because of the wasteful and toxic plastic bottles and the fact that some of the waters contain added ingredients like fluorine and chlorine. Natural water was more healthful and less expensive. (Apropos the plastic bottles, on the rare occasions when we purchase commercial products we make sure the packaging is minimal and recyclable. No plastic packaging is permitted.)

x        Free-range and hormones are obviously not issues. Nor is the use of antibiotics in animals.

xi       And we avoid contact with the outside world. Even so, we have great love and respect for those we never see.

xii      Even at a young age we taught them self-government was the backbone of the community.

DABDA

                                                                                                                              

Like everyone else, especially the very young and the old, I've been thinking about death.

“And yet most of us live our day-to-day lives without focusing too much on our own mortality. For better and for worse, we do not live each day as if it could be our last; we do not make the fact of death a dominant reality in our everyday lives. When a loved one dies or some tragedy strikes, we are perhaps reminded of our mortal condition; we might imagine our children throwing dirt into our graves. But the immediacy of life quickly returns, and we live again, for a while, as if the horizon of the future were very long, if not indefinite.”ⁱ

Cohen and George are right. It's an intellectual exercise, not “a dominant reality in [my] everyday [life].” However unreal though, every now and then it comes to mind. For example, I was thinking about death while listening to a eulogy at a funeral I attended recently. I wondered about what would be said at my funeral. (Don't we all?) There are so many characteristics a person has, so many ideas he has about himself. How are these distilled by the speaker? How is a choice made about what to emphasize? What will be included in my obituary and what will be omitted? I know the aspects of my personality and my life that I'd want to be mentioned, but the decisions will be made by the speaker.ⁱⁱ And, if the funeral is typical, my virtues will be overblown. How can I fault that?

Of course I won't know what is said. I've constructed the same scenarios as everyone else for what death is like, and only the least plausible includes consciousness of the life I would have just left.ⁱⁱⁱ Nothing is more likely. Or, better said, “nothingness” is more likely.^iv Among the other possibilities is a kind of consciousness of the soul, and knowledge and participation in some form of “afterlife.” It's hard to imagine what this might be, but I treasure it as a possibility in order keep open the hope that the end of life is not the end. I can imagine dying. There may be pain, or there may not. I may be competent or unable to understand the world around me. Indeed, I may be insensate. But I cannot imagine death. I'll be alive when dying. There will always be a future for me, no matter how bleak. Unfortunately, as far as we know that is not the case with death. And that is what leads to fear.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross characterized the reactions to the expectation of death and to that fear: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance – DABDA.^v It's reassuring to think that ultimately I'll probably come to accept death, and knowing that, I've already worked out a form of rationalization of it. It doesn't tell me what death is like, only that I shouldn't be afraid of it.

I like to think of death as similar to what I experienced as a child. (And it's comforting to do so.) My parents forced me to take a nap or to go to sleep, and I fought it.^vi And that was especially true when something exciting, like a party for me, was planned for the other end of the sleep. But when I awoke, rested, it was clear they were right and the new “life” I was experiencing was better than anything that preceded it. Sadly, I didn't remember that the next time sleep was forced on me, so I feared it and fought it the next time.^vii

Even so, it is our understanding – right or wrong – that there are things worse than death. From Patrick Henry's perspective, and that of many of his fellow Founding Fathers, the most valid stance was “Give me Liberty or give me Death.”^viii And, in the words of Nathan Hale on the scaffold, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”

More recently the motto was “Better dead than red.” Catchy, if somewhat jingoistic. Some may have taken it seriously, but in all likelihood most considered it more a slogan than a policy. Most examples of self-sacrifice are probably impulsive.^ix That doesn't make them less heroic, for those whose instinct is to save others at the expense of their own lives demonstrate lifelong training in patriotism and in concern for others. Perhaps it's genetic,^x and is an evolutionary strategy for species continuity, but whatever the reason for giving one's life for others, it demonstrates that for those people death was preferable to the alternative.

Not so heroically, we all rush toward death. We don't think of it in those terms, but that's the reality. We live, as Cohen and George remind us, “as if the horizon of the future were very long, if not indefinite.” We're eager to reach the next milestone in our journey – a birthday, anniversary, new job, daughter's wedding, or retirement – for what we consider to be reasons of enjoyment. Or we're determined that some unpleasant task will be completed and we can move on. But all of these things will take place in a future which we seek earnestly. And all bring us closer to death, although that is never on our minds. Nor should it be. After all, there's no point in thinking about things like death. Even if others do. We won't have to worry about it for a long time.

That's denial. It's the first step.

Next episode: “I Cannot Tell A Lie” – My memory isn't good enough.

I        Eric Cohen and Robert P. George, “The Problems and Possibilities of Modern Genetics,” in Constitution 3.0, Jeffrey Rosen and Benjamin Wittes, editors. Page 186.

ii        Of course I won't hear it, but that doesn't keep me from wondering. Perhaps I'll prepare a résumé for the speakers in order that nothing I consider important will be unavailable. That, however, is no guarantee that it will be used.

iii       But since I cannot know what G-d has in store for us, the speculation is childish.

iv       See note iii.

v       On Death and Dying, 1969, Routledge.

vi      I didn't know what sleep was, and whether I would awaken. And even if I did, I'd miss so much.

vii     It may be fantasy, but it's reassuring. Moreso than believing, as many do, that nothing follows life but the rotting of the corpse. (If they're right they'll never know it.) And from my point of view,such a fantasy is no loss. In fact I will have been happier than I might have been. If they're wrong, they've spent a lifetime anticipating a nothingness of their own creation.

viii    That, of course, didn't prevent them from allowing slavery in the Constitution. Politics and all that. Henry, himself, condemning a strong central government along with condemning life in general under British rule, opposed the Constitution, but still owned the slaves he inherited. “I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them.” Inconvenience, apparently, was also worse than death.

ix      Suicide may also be impulsive, but that's not the subject here.

x       See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

The Absolute Truth

                            

The trouble with absolutes is that they're absolute. There are no exceptions. And it's hard not to temper your beliefs with reality and changed circumstances.  Despite that though, I'm an absolutist.

That's a difficult concept. And it's difficult for a variety of unrelated reasons. Most are based on the idea – one widely held – that there are no absolutes. Some people believe there's no such thing as an absolute. All values are relative: all are based on the preferences of different cultures.ⁱ And truth is whatever a particular society considers it to be.ⁱⁱ What some consider moral others would view as immoral; and there may be a lack of concurrence on truth, with many arguing that there are relative truths and degrees of truth. So different groups should have different standards for right and wrong. And, indeed, they do.

But they all accept the view that there is a “Right” and a “Wrong.” The taboos of incest and homosexuality may be common, however conceding that such ideas are not universal, everyone believes that murder is wrong. Even if you accept the concept of absolutes though, agreement with others breaks down in the areas of definition and interpretation. And right and wrong depend on those foundations – foundations which vary according to time and place.ⁱⁱⁱ That's where cultural differences arise.

In addition, there are political differences which regulate our views. If murder is wrong, is capital punishment permissible? What about abortion? And self-defense? Among other areas, there is an overlap of philosophy, science, and culture in relation to such questions. (Similarly there are arguments regarding many other issues, such as one we view as sacred –“freedom of speech.” Liberal groups, like the ACLU, see this as an absolute “right”^iv while others cannot consider it without evaluating the context. The “Patriot Act,” for example, is, in their view, an appropriate response to danger.)

Yet we all accept the idea that there are such things as right and wrong. So that view must come from somewhere. But where?

For many, the Bible provides the “final word” on the subject.^v There are problems with this explanation, though. Many societies are outside of the community that follows biblical teaching, with holy books and concepts of their own, and many individuals consider all religion to be mistaken. They may still believe in right and wrong, though. More important, however, even if the Bible contains truths and absolutes written by G-d, it was proofread and interpreted by humans.^vi So if, at the time of Babel, societies were separated by language, it is reasonable to expect that their understandings of what we consider basic premises would also be different.

Some people, including biblical personalities and interpreters, focus on an individual's intent as a tool to determine whether what he has said or done was right. This is exemplified in a talmudic story about a debate between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. While in that debate both argued sincerely and strongly for a particular position, in the end a voice from heaven announced that “The law is according to the House of Hillel,” but “These and these [the arguments of both] are the words of the living G-d.”^vii There may have been an absolute, but those who were wrong weren't necessarily “wrong.” Because of their intent, even though they disagreed, because they had argued “for the sake of heaven”^viii both were right.

But the idea that good intent justifies all thoughts and acts leads to the conclusion that what most people would view as evil is “right,” if their perpetrators are convinced of their own virtue. And that cannot be the case. Too many arguments, injustices, and killings take place between parties convinced of the morality of their cause.

The idea of evolution suggests a different, and, perhaps, better answer. Many of the actions of members of the animal kingdom are based on instinct; they are taken without conscious consideration but are helpful to the individual or the species. Whether dealing with the protection of offspring, the following of migration paths, avoiding danger, finding sustenance, or something else, these actions are taken rapidly and, apparently, without thought. Somehow or other they must be coded into our genes – for we humans have them too. Perhaps we call it “intuition” or a “hunch,” but it is difficult to support on rational grounds even though we may be convinced that it is right. Most believers in the truth of the Bible, followers of other religious traditions, and atheists agree, for example, that there is a responsibility to help those in need. There may be disagreement on the means by which such a result might be achieved, but there is agreement on the goal.

And more and more evidence is being adduced that our acts on behalf of others are genetically determined. They're in our DNA. We're controlled by an “altruism gene.”^ix And that raises additional questions. If there is such a gene, are there alleles and mutations? When someone says “the Devil made me do it,” or G-d ordained it, is he correct? That, of course, depends on your views of evolution and religion. But, once again, most of us believe that we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. It's absolute – even if we disagree on the details.

Yes. There are absolutes. But, as I said, that's a difficult concept. And the bigger problem for me is that although I believe in absolutes, I don't know what they are. No one does. For the time being we're stuck with the need to compromise our relative values to achieve some kind of peace and cooperation. Perhaps this (and further evolution) will bring us closer to the “Truth.”

Next episode: “The Amoeba And The Oak Tree” – How do you rate them?

i     For many there is the view that we all have “natural rights” and that these cannot be taken away. In the American experience we find these as the “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. But they do not come from Thomas Jefferson or John Locke. What are they and where do they come from? They're rights we're all supposed to have. How do these “rights” relate to religion or are they human creations? Do we all agree on them? Are they absolute? And who (or Who) enforces those rights, and how?

ii    See “1984” by George Orwell.

iii    Noah was said to be “righteous in his time.” Whether that means that the standards of his time were different from those of another period can be debated, but the fact that the praise is ambiguous indicated some change in criteria from time to time.

iv    It was suggested earlier (see note i above) that “rights” come from somewhere, so it is reasonable to consider whether this is a divine right or one created by humans.

v     As well as many other issues.

vi    It also contains copying errors and differences in versions, especially in the Talmud. In fact there are conscious changes and word additions based on the premise that a particular statement is true irrespective of other text that might bring it into question.

vii    Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b.

viii    Babylonian Talmud, Avot, 5:17.

ix    See http://io9.com/5859786/is-this-the-altruism-gene. There are many similar articles and blogs, all pointing to some kind of genetic predisposition to help others. Although it seems reasonable from an evolutionary standpoint that the purpose of such a gene would be the benefit of the species, humans who are altruistic may devote themselves to other species as well as other people.