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.

Its Weakest Members

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menⁱ are created equal, ...”

The Declaration of Independence said that, but no one takes it seriously – at least not in that form.

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ...”

Now we're heading back toward reality. Clearly there are differences that are governed by DNA. There are differences in sexual anatomy between men and women, there are differences related to physical status, appearance, and development, and there are differences in mental capacity, there are others related to susceptibility to diseases, and many others. But there are even more, and perhaps more significant, differences between people.

“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”ⁱⁱ

It's finally clear that the “unalienable” rights refer to an individual's situation, not to his physical appearance.ⁱⁱⁱ With this knowledge, however it becomes even more obvious that those who believe this must be aware that the rights with which we are endowed are not necessarily the rights all people enjoy. Too many people are born into poverty and starvation, into bondage, and into families that are incapable of caring for the – perhaps because they do not wish to do so.

It seems unfair.

But that is the kind of society we would create if we could. For the principles that Jefferson espoused were goals rather than realities. David Hume wrote about the distinction and confusion between descriptive and prescriptive views – the “is-ought” dichotomy^iv – and it seems clear that the Founding Fathers had “ought” in mind when they met and discussed the separation from the Crown and the creation of a new country. It's hard to otherwise imagine what Jefferson, a slaveholder, was thinking when he wrote about “Liberty,” or what the writers and the Constitution meant when they defined a slave as three-fifths of a person. It's clear they were talking about goals – what should be – rather than what was a reality, or seemed to be a practical plan for that time. Their intent was to describe the order that they hoped would result from their efforts – eventually if not immediately.

They had in mind what so many before and since pictured as a utopia. What was yet to come were the communes and settlements, and what they hadn't considered was that they were calling for an end to free enterprise, personal initiative, and property,^v which were the anchors of the society they desired. In their zeal, they did not realize that subsequent generations would find, in their words, an argument for social equality, a “leveling of the playing field.”

Clearly that isn't what they meant. They understood “equality” to be referring to equality before the law and equality of opportunity. As time has passed, however, we have turned, more and more, to the ideas of the level playing field. We have accepted the admirable goal in which “equality” is almost identical to “sameness.” We aim for an egalitarian society in which there are no rich and poor, but everyone is the same. We have internalized the idea that “A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”^vi We have instituted programs of entitlements and charity that are intended to equalize the situations of rich and poor^vii – at least our own rich and poor.^viii

The reality, unfortunately, is that our founders were probably better judges of character than we. They recognized that there are differences among people, some of which are inborn, but some reflect the disposition of the individual. The ambitious was entitled to a reward for his action, while the lazy might be aided, but only minimally. Inborn errors, both physical and mental, were the responsibility of society even though society wasn't responsible for them. Equalizing the treatment of all members – its weakest and its strongest – is not only impossible but reflects questionable wisdom. Support of our weakest members is admirable and appropriate, but it should not stifle the productivity the rest.

That is a lesson we have yet to learn. When we give a prize to every child so as to boost his self-esteem; when we teach a class at a low level so the slowest will be able to “succeed” – ignoring the capable so as not to “hurt” those less so; when we encourage and support the poor by taking from those who have more, we are running the risk of damaging society. Elevating the measure of our society by trying to equalize the lot of its weakest members sounds better than it is. The founders sought only equality of opportunity – political and economic. They knew that they couldn't correct a malformed limb or inculcate ambition in the lazy or virtue in born deceivers. All that would be achieved would be the discouragement of those who were productive.

Equality, however desirable, is very much like utopia. It is impossible. Our ancestors knew this. They knew the difference between is and ought. We should learn from them.

Next episode: “Obama, Roosevelt, And Rocky” – Dealing with children and other problems.

i       People.

ii      Thomas Jefferson wrote these inspiring words, in large part basing them on the work of Locke and on the Virginia Declaration of Right which was largely written by George Mason. Interestingly both indicated that property was primarily what “happiness” meant.

iii      Actually all babies look alike, and they all look like Winston Churchill.

iv        A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739.

v      As was noted earlier (see endnote ii), property was what was understood to be a basic component of happiness. For many of the signers, a “man” was defined as a white male property owner. He was entitled to Life and Liberty. As the Virginia Declaration of Rights says, “... all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” That declaration was adopted on June 12, 1776, just before the Declaration of Independence.

vi      There is considerable dispute concerning the origin of this idea and among those to whom it has been attributed are Churchill, Pope John Paul II, Dostoyevsky, Truman, and Cardinal Roger Mahony. Ghandi, who was more spiritual (or less concerned with his brothers) than most wrote: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” I'd pay more attention to people.

vii      We consider it the responsibility of the rich to support the poor through taxes and assesments. Thus their property is communal (community) property. Perhaps the Founding Fathers viewed the matter differently – perhaps they didn't accept the concept of socialism – however times and philosophies have changed. George Mason may have frowned on the idea that his descendants might be “ deprive[d] or divest[ed of] their ... means of acquiring and possessing property,” but that was an eighteenth century idea. We know better now.

viii      It is surely logical to assume that such equalization should include all people in all countries, but that doesn't seem to have been offered yet as a program. Chances are, though, that it will be at some time in the future.