Nobility

In 1895, Alfred Nobel's will provided for the annual presentation of five prizes for signal achievements in specific fields. Nobel was a scientist, and the majority of the prizes were in scientific fields – Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology and Medicine. A fourth was to be given for literature.

There was also a fifth prize which was awarded in Norway rather than Nobel's home country of Sweden where the others were presented. Whether in Sweden or Norway, however, the ceremony is held in the presence of the King. These are noble prizes and merit the honorable supervision of nobility. Why he decided on the second venue is uncertain, but the prizes awarded by the Norwegian committee are usually the most prominent, and they have certainly caused the most controversy that the award has received. (A sixth prize, in Economic Sciences, was added in 1968 but it was funded by a Swedish bank and, although awarded at the same time and equated with them, it is not actually a “Nobel Prize.”) Although there is disagreement over the relative merits of their accomplishments, there is rarely any question about the worthiness of the ultimate winner of an award in one of the scientific fields. And while the literature prize recipients may be more subjectively chosen, the laureates are almost invariably meritorious and well chosen (although James Joyce was passed over for an award).

Would that the same could be said of the Peace Prize. There has been much criticism of the committee choosing the winners, as well as extensive second guessing of some of the recipients. In part this probably results from the public being better able to understand the issues involved than it might be in regard to, for example, physics. But the level of consternation that some of the awards have engendered reflects the fact that personal biases and politics have played a significant role in some of the choices. The awarding of a Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat is enough to make one wonder what the aim of the committee was, and honoring Henry Kissinger, for ending a war that was still going on, was, at best, premature. Many, however, considered it a mockery. Tom Lehrer, who wrote satirical songs in the latter half of the twentieth century, is reported to have said “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger 'was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.'”

Another questionable award took place in 2009 when the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to a President who had been in office for less than a year. It was for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” During his term, in the quest for peace as he sees it, he has angered our friends, lost the respect of our enemies, and diminished our nation's prestige. And in his entire term the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize he has not brought our nation a single day when we were not at war. The award was a victory of political bias over reality and common sense. It didn't reflect any accomplishments because there were none. It was merely a slap at the President's predecessor. Skoal.

I raise these points now because of the death last week of Elie Wiesel, 1986 winner of the award. [This essay is being written on July 7^th, 2016.] Notwithstanding the slanders of pro-Palestinians, Wiesel was one of the first to speak out about the horrors of the Holocaust, and one of the most vocal advocates of action to deal with other atrocities in whatever countries they occurred.

In his presentation speech, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, spoke of the terrible period of the Nazi crimes which Wiesel and millions of others had endured, and then said

… The duty and responsibility which Elie Wiesel preaches are not primarily concerned with the fear of the terrors of the past repeating themselves. It is much more an engagement directed at preventing the possible victory of evil forces in the future. The creative force in this process is not hate and revenge, but rather a longing for freedom, a love of life and a respect for human dignity. Or as Elie Wiesel has said himself: "I will conquer our murderers by attempting to reconstruct what they destroyed." … It is in recognition of this particular human spirit's victory over the powers of death and degradation, and as a support to the rebellion of good against the evil in the world, that the Norwegian Nobel Committee today presents the Nobel Peace Prize to Elie Wiesel. We do this on behalf of millions — from all peoples and races. We do it in deep reverence for the memory of the dead, but also with the deep felt hope that the prize will be a small contribution which will forward the cause which is the greatest of all humanity's concerns — the cause of peace.

And in his acceptance speech Wiesel said

… Words of gratitude. First to our common Creator. This is what the Jewish tradition commands us to do. At special occasions, one is duty-bound to recite the following prayer: "Barukh … shehekhyanu vekiymanu vehigianu lazman hazeh" — "Blessed be Thou for having sustained us until this day." … Do I have the right to represent the multitudes who have perished? Do I have the right to accept this great honor on their behalf? I do not. No one may speak for the dead, no one may interpret their mutilated dreams and visions. And yet, I sense their presence. I always do — and at this moment more than ever. The presence of my parents, that of my little sister. The presence of my teachers, my friends, my companions … This honor belongs to all the survivors and their children and, through us to the Jewish people with whose destiny I have always identified. … [Having suffered myself] I swore never to be silent whenever [and] wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. … Our lives no longer belong to us alone; they belong to all those who need us desperately.

This time they got it right.

Growing Down

                                                        

The states of our health and our well-being, have never been greater. And, to a very great degree, we have medical science to thank for that. That's what has happened with time, and there is every expectation that continued research will lead to further improvements. We have made childbirth – the continuation of our species – less hazardous, we've improved nutrition, conquered many diseases once believed to be incurable, lessened pain and other feared symptoms making the end of life more bearable for many, and advancements in care have increased our lifespans significantly.

But life could be better, and society as well, with some changes in our normal development, and it is in this area that I think medical research can have its greatest impact. Let me explain.

It's normal for a baby to soil himselfⁱ making extra work for his motherⁱⁱ who is trying to deal with the other children – her own and those over for a play date – who are running and screaming like wild animals.ⁱⁱⁱ In addition, as teenagers, it will be normal for them to know everything (ask them if you don't believe me) and to find fault with their parents and grandparents, who actually have greater knowledge along with experience and wisdom. Those in their twenties and thirties are likely to be physically stronger than those older or younger, with the elderly being especially frail.

And the same young and middle-aged adults can be expected to have prodigious appetites for everything, especially food and sex.^iv It's the time when most young women want to have children^v and there are always men eager to indulge them (and themselves). Once those children have completed their education and are out of the house and beginning their own families, and once the parents have recouped some of the expenses they incurred rearing the children, they're put out to pasture. It's harsh to characterize retirement that way, but many people consider it in those terms. And, sadly, that's the way it often is. As one of my friends put it, “anyone who considers these the 'golden years' must be young.” With them come aches and pains, memory loss, the loss of other capacities once dear, and loss of energy and strength to tarnish those years. Oh well, you can always look forward to dotage.

The various stages of life are described by many great writers. Over the years not much has changed in the order of things. But I suspect that with a little tinkering by our medical scientists, geneticists, biochemists, and their ilk, we could rearrange things a little.

For example, it would be a relief to mothers (and fathers, too) if babies weren't incontinent. They're likely to have that problem in their eighties or nineties (if they make it) anyway, so why not combine it all in that stage. And give the energy of children to that group of seniors so that we don't have to take care of them. In exchange perhaps we could take their wisdom and experience and give them to the teenagers so they can start to realize that they don't know everything. Soon enough, with the proper education to provide knowledge to accompany the wisdom, they may start acting like human beings. Meanwhile, with their energy levels reduced significantly, children will be easier to manage by overworked mothers. And possibly, if some of that energy could be transferred to fathers, they could help a little when they came home from work.^vi

We need to work on dad a little, too. In the first couple of decades of the marriage his energy at home seems to be focused, in large part, on mom and the bedroom. Mom often has mixed feelings about the whole thing because of the possibility of pregnancy and nursing in the middle of the night. Society has convinced her that she is a bad mother if she resorts to a bottle, so while dad can ignore the problem at two AM,^vii mom has to get up and feed the baby. The best solution is to lower the sexual appetites of the two – to put their peaks off until later in life. In the meantime they can get the rest^viii they need to help them through the day.

A good time to restore the urge to mom would be just after menopause. There would be no fear of an unwanted pregnancy that way.^ix Perhaps we should wait a little with dad just to be sure. Give mom the opportunity for a fling or two. Many of the men with sexually transmissible diseases will have died off, or become less of a risk, which will be of great benefit. But when dad does return to the field of battle it will be with less strength than he had a couple of decades earlier. In fact there's a good possibility^x he'll have ED by that time and have lost his ability, if not his interest, in becoming a dirty old man.

I'm sure you can think of other changes you'd make. It's a new science. But soon enough we'll have perfect specimens to clone. We're already working on designer babies so it's simply a matter of deciding what we want. And the alterations that I'm proposing would not only benefit the individual, but society as a whole.

There's a Nobel Prize waiting out there. Go for it.

Next episode: “Mom, Spinach, And The Supreme Court” – Food for thought.

i      I know that's not PC. Make it “herself or himself” or, if your grammar is faulty, “theirself.” And make appropriate changes when necessary in the remainder of the essay.

ii     Don't criticize me for sexual stereotyping. I'm simply recognizing reality, not prescribing what some members of society want to be the case.

iii     No slight on wild animals is intended.

iv     The appetite of teenagers for sex is also great, although fantasy is often more the issue than reality. A teenage boy (there I go again) however, is likely to indulge his huge appetite for food the moment it crosses his mind.

v      Leading, of course, to the situations described above.

vi     I'm stereotyping again.

vii    And four AM, and midnight, and whenever else it's necessary.

viii   I should have said “sleep.” “Rest” is subject to misinterpretation.

ix    It would be good for society as well. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would minimize the political problems, as well as the medical costs, of abortions.

x      A very good possibility for many wives. Anyway he's a pig and it serves him right.