When in Rome

Right or wrong?

It's a question that most of us ask ourselves from time to time. Most of us. Not all because some aren't concerned about the answer. But those who do ask are usually concerned. And they're involved in an activity which is new to them. They haven't formed an opinion and the boundaries and rules aren't clear. Often the goal is to do what's legal rather than what's right, and in such a situation you have to know the rules. If you're going to exploit the law, you have to know the law.

It's not a new problem, but the answer may be difficult. There's an old joke about a student preparing for a test and obtaining the questions asked on previous exams. Noting that the questions seem the same from year to year he inquires of student senior to him and is informed that though the questions are the same, the answers change. (And that's the case regarding right and wrong – from time to time and from place to place.)

One and one will always be two (in base 2 or above) but it's less clear that human sacrifice is legitimate. The latter issue is one that is based on societal beliefs, preferences, and judgments, and they're subject to change. Which raises a question I've mentioned on many occasions in the past: absolutes. I haven't changed my opinion, although many will consider it old-fashioned and insensitive to the current, understanding, persuasion. It's not multi-cultural. It doesn't recognize that different societies view things differently and to oppose what may be practices that may be the norm elsewhere betrays a lack of tolerance, or worse on my part. But I accept the idea that there are absolutes.

And the different societies which I mention aren't all separated simply by location, but by time as well. Does that change the principle? Was it ever, anywhere, justified to sacrifice babies to the “gods?” It was the practice in some ancient, and not so ancient, societies and cults to do so, but we would reject it immediately, irrespective of the fact that it might have been a “normal” practice somewhere at some time. There are absolutes, and, among those who care about right and wrong, I suspect there are strictures on their behavior which supersede the customs of the society in which they find themselves.

If, however, such absolutes exist, there has to be a source. For me that source is the Bible, although I know that some of the absolutes it contains are shared by societies that have never seen one. (I'll come back to that point presently.) It's a good guidebook, although the sages of Judaism have advised us to obey the laws of the state in which we live. There's an exception, however. If secular law conflicts with Torah (Biblical) law, we are to follow that in the Torah. (“Right” is defined by the Torah.) By doing so we deny the following of the aphorism about Rome and its practices. When they conflict with our laws we don't follow them, although we may comply with local customs otherwise. Indeed, when we're in a Jewish community with different customs we follow theirs rather than our own. It's our practice to try to follow the rules of the community in which we find ourselves.

That leaves one subject to be addressed: the fact that there are some absolutes which exist in societies unaware of each other. Somehow or other we all recognize certain limits to our choices. And some of them are shared, even though other practices may be at great variance. How have we achieved this common position when many of our other customs are so different from other societies?

Suggesting that some of these are obvious and serve to protect us as we protect others is begging the question. It may be true, but it doesn't explain anything. Why are certain things obvious? Why should everyone have, in regard to some aspects of our lives and beliefs, a common view of right and wrong? The only explanation that I can conceive of in this age of electronics is that we're all programmed in the same way – at least in regard to some moral as well as physical characteristics. It's in our DNA.

But sometimes cultural influences override DNA. When human sacrifice existed in some societies, they believed that what they were doing was right. At least those in charge thought that their practices were proper, even if there were some who disapproved. That doesn't mean that they were right any more than it means that we should give free rein to cultures among us that have traditions that deviate from the absolutes. Every society has rules, and the hierarchy of its restrictions includes, or at least should include, the absolutes.

But when there is disagreement about the absolutes, who decides what they are? G-d. The One who created us and assigned our DNA. There is a right and there is a wrong. Even if there are some who are unwilling to acknowledge them.

When in Rome, or anywhere else, do what the Romans do. Unless you know that they are doing wrong. Then do what your conscience – as controlled by your DNA – directs you to do. If the society in which you are chooses not to follow the absolutes, it is wrong. That's not a matter of different societal norms and sensitivity to the practices of others. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

In the words of the cliché, “do the right thing.”






March 28, 2017

Men Are Men. Women Are Women.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? But not everyone accepts this formulation. It's the current view that people are what they consider themselves – what they think they are or what they want to be. DNA is not what they view as the deciding factor in the mix.

That's the mood of our society – actually of many societies. The watchword of the day is choice, and people are less inclined to be bound by existing scientific concepts or conventions that many associate with the past. It's not all bad but it raises some problems.

Evolution. We're divided into species, which are defined as groups that cannot fruitfully crossbreed. Perhaps they can produce offspring for a single generation, but not beyond. Survival and continuity of the species are important goals. Males and females of particular species are designed to procreate, though the offspring may have individual traits that vary from the “norm.” Homosexuality may occasionally occur but it is not ordinarily the “norm.” Most species are controlled by instinct and not by conscious choice. They don't make decisions based on intellect – not because they have none, but because the issue of sexual identity is not a part of their choice system as are meat and vegetables and territory, and safety.

We're human. We have a kind of intelligence that allows decision-making about a variety of things. And we can think about a lot, including who we “are.” “Who we 'are'” means that we can ponder our sexual identity as well as every other feature. And we can make decisions about that identity – decisions that we expect others to accept and, in recent years, decisions that we expect others to endorse. We no longer feel bound by the definitions and the expectations of the past. We now have LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer people), and transgender as well, so identifying themselves and demanding support and understanding from all around them. And they maintain that theirs is not actually a life-style choice or a disease. They are born with the disposition to their sexual orientation. It's normal, and those who oppose it are bigots.

But “lower” species really show us the way. And the way is about survival of the species. In most instances the male has the responsibility for the survival of the present – protecting his family – while the female, by bearing children, provides for survival of the species into the future. In those animals we see pair-ups in male/female matings, and things seem to work out. “Boy-girl” relationships are usually dominant.

Only human beings, at least some of them, seem to question that course of action, and they are supported by those in society, the public opinion of their supporters, who promote free choice for all on all subjects. In their view everyone should be able to make whatever choices he/she/it wants. If someone deviates from what was the pattern until recently – that of humans as well as other species – it's our obligation to praise such action, not to criticize it. “Right” and “wrong” are better taught by the media than by parents and clergy. Any production or publication that does not feature, that and does not promote homosexuality and transgender identification, is viewed as sexist (much as a production that does not feature a mixed-race couple is racist).

I wonder if that “normal” condition existed in prehistoric times. If, as they say, it's a normal condition for them and they were born with it, we must assume that it's genetic and has been passed down for eons – millions of years, six thousand, or somewhere in between depending on your frame of reference.

And if it's genetic, if it derives from DNA, the response should be obvious: those who favor same-sex marriage should encourage it, but if you oppose same-sex marriage you should also encourage it. What better way to be sure that the responsible DNA doesn't get passed on to the next generation.

Win-win. They get what they want and those who don't favor that life-style choice – and it is a choice if we agree that when and where it was considered taboo there were fewer manifestations of that life-style – are likely to see the numbers going down. It may take a long time, but it may ultimately change societal fads and fashions.

Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disease, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are..

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

More to follow.  And Happy Flag Day!

May 15, 2017

Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disese, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are.

The Future Of Medicine

Everything nowadays is moving at an unprecedented rate. That includes medicine and other fields of science. Among the greatest accomplishments of recent years has been the decryption of the human genome. And in the years before that was the development of computers from large and (relatively) slow machines to the “super” computers we have today. And they're getting better. Gordon Moore was too conservative in his estimate. Human ingenuity is a powerful engine. And Watson will probably find a way to improve on what we can already do.

I suspect that at some time in the not-too-distant future, if it is not the case already, human DNA research and computer science will be linked to carry out more of the research into disease and its treatment than is already the case. Although I admit to ignorance of current exploitation of these tools, there are some avenues I'd like to propose questions for these efforts. Some may already have been answered, but I suspect there is room for additional inquiry.

Specifically, having identified the various genes that make us human, do we know what chemical each one, or each combination, produces, or what process it controls? Do we know the composition of all of our microscopic structures, tissues, and organs in respect to those chemicals and processes? Do we know how the various diseases affect our internal environments? And do we know the effects of common (or uncommon) combinations of diseases?   

And to what degree can we digitize proposed pharmaceuticals and determine how they would act in the environments of our bodies, and how they would interact with the disease processes that afflict us and the bacterial and other invaders attacking us? Can we determine the unanticipated side-effect that are likely to occur when those pharmaceuticals come in contact with our “components.” (I raise this question because I suffer from side-effects of some of the medicines being introduced into my system. Of course, these discomforts are well worth enduring on the assumption that the medications can produce the effects for which they are being given, but I'd wonder if a computer-generated variant of the pharmaceuticals can be suggested that would produce the benefits that are required, but would lessen the side-effects, the physical costs.)

Speaking of costs, it's probable that doing much of the study in a computer rather than a laboratory and, ultimately, a long-term study with a test group, will shorten the process and make it cheaper. And, perhaps, it will lessen the need for test animals, a result that will bring elation on the part of many animal lovers. It doesn't seem likely that the need for animal and human studies will be eliminated – at least not in the near future – but the magnitude of such studies can be reduced, and they can certainly be entered with more knowledge. And if the cost of pharmaceutical development can be reduced, so can the cost of the products developed. And the cost of medical care in general, which will make better health for poorer nations as well as those that are developed.

Another area that might be explored using the same techniques is the effect of drug combinations on the diseases being studied. It seems reasonable to expect that here, too, the required information can be obtained quickly, less expensively, and with a minimum of harm to humans or other animals. Similarly the study of interactions between target drugs and those likely to be in use for the treatment of other associated, or incidental, processes could be explored. It's better to anticipate problems than to react to them. Over-the-counter potions should also be included in such studies, and a “library” of medications would be of value to all investigators. (And some commercial firm will be able to make a good deal or money by creating such a library.)

As I said earlier, I don't know the stage of development of all these ideas – whether they are plausible or if they are already in the works. But a world in which disease can be studied more quickly and with lower cost would be a wonderful result, and techniques to perform the functions I'm discussing, if they don't already exist, and if they are possible, might be worth exploring.

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.

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.