science

Gandhi's Seven Deadly Sins

The following are excerpts from Stephen R. Covey’s Principle-Centered Leadership. He begins the chapter with, “Mahatma Gandhi said that seven things will destroy us. Notice that all of them have to do with social and political conditions. Note also that the antidote of each of these “deadly sins” is an explicit external standard or something that is based on natural principals and laws, not on social values.”

Gandhi’s Seven Deadly Sins

Wealth without work :

“This refers to the practice of getting something for nothing” and get rich quick. These ideas are dangerous because, “Justice and judgement are inevitably inseparable, suggesting that to the degree you move away from the laws of nature, your judgement will be adversely affected” (pg. 88).

Pleasure without conscience :

“The chief query of the immature, greedy, selfish, and sensuous has always been, ‘What’s in it for me? Will this please me? Will it ease me?’ Lately many people seem to want these pleasures without conscience or sense of responsibility, even abandoning or utterly neglecting spouses and children in the name of doing their thing. But independence is not the most mature state of being - it’s only a middle position on the way to interdependence, the most advanced and mature state. To learn to give and take, to live selflessly, to be sensitive, to be considerate, is our challenge” (pg. 88).

Knowledge without character :

“As dangerous as a little knowledge is, even more dangerous is much knowledge without a strong principle character. Purely intellectual development without commensurate internal character development makes as much sense as putting a high-powered sports car in the hands of a teenager who is high on drugs. Yet all too often in the academic world, that’s exactly what we do by not focusing on the character development of young people” (pg 89).

Commerce (business) without morality (ethics) :

To Adam Smith, author of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, “every business transaction is a moral challenge to see that both parties come out fairly. Fairness and benevolence in business are the underpinnings of the free enterprise system called capitalism.” “If we ignore the moral foundation and allow economic systems to operate without moral foundation . . . we will soon create an amoral, if not immoral, society and business” (pg 90).

Science without humanity :

“If science becomes all technique and technology, it quickly degenerates into man against humanity. Technologies come from the paradigms of science. And if there’s very little understanding of the higher human purpose that the technology is strive to serve, we become victims of our own technocracy” (pg 91).

Religion without sacrifice :

“Without sacrifice we become active in a church but remain inactive in its gospel. In other words, we go for the social facade of religion and the piety of religious practices. There is not real walking with people or going the second mile or trying to deal with our social problems that may eventually undo our economic system. It takes sacrifice to serve the needs of other people - the sacrifice of our own pride and prejudice, among other things.”

“If our church or religion is seen as just another hierarchical system, its members won’t have a sense of service or inner worship. Instead they will be into outward observances and all the visible accoutrements of religion. But they are neither God-centered nor principle-centered” (pg. 91-92).

Politics without principle :

“If there is no principal, there is no true north, nothing you can depend upon. The focus on the personality ethic is the instant creation of an image that sells well in the social and economic marketplace.”

. . .

“If you get a sick social will behind the political will that is independent of principle, you could have a very sick organization or society with distorted values” (pg. 93).

For more on . . .

-N- Stuff  :  On LivingDo Orchestras Really Need Conductors?

Should we kill all mosquitoes?

"No other bite kills more humans, or makes more of us sick." Nor is there any animal more annoying. 

And to make matters worse, there seems to be no real purpose to these ridiculous pests. THE WORLD COULD EASILY SURVIVE WITHOUT THEM!!!

Andrea Crisanti, "a tousled, sad-eyed man with a gentle smile, was trained as a physician in Rome" then studied molecular biology in Heidelberg where "he developed his lifelong interest in malaria."  In recent years, he and his colleagues have discovered a way to "spread an infertility mutation to 75 percent of a mosquito population" (via).

Which sounds great! 

But . . .

For thousands of years, the relentlessly expanding population of Homo sapiens has driven other species to extinction by eating them, shooting them, destroying their habitat or accidentally introducing more successful competitors to their environment. But never have scientists done so deliberately, under the auspices of public health. The possibility raises three difficult questions: Would it work? Is it ethical? Could it have unforeseen consequences? (via).

The answers are a bit more complex than what one might expect. Yes, breeding sterile mosquitos could wipe out a large percentage of the overall population and eradicating them completely in smaller communities, but it's probably almost impossible to think they could be wiped out completely. But it's the bigger question, the Jurassic Park question of just because we can rid the world of these pesky insects, does that mean we should?

The larger concern, arguably, is over the use of CRISPR itself, and the awesome power it unleashes over the environment. “We can remake the biosphere to be what we want, from woolly mammoths to nonbiting mosquitoes,” Greely muses. “How should we feel about that? Do we want to live in nature, or in Disneyland?” 

“We will have engineered the ecosystems of people elsewhere in the world without their knowledge or consent. We go from the default assumption that the things we engineer will not spread, to assuming they will . . . as soon as you’re thinking of a gene drive technology, you have to assume whatever you’re making will spread once it gets outside the lab. Human error will win out, if not deliberate human action" (via).

After swatting and scratching and waving off that annoying buzz in my ears all summer long, getting rid of mosquitos was a no-brainer. Especially after watching this:

But then, "as soon as you’re thinking of a gene drive technology, you have to assume whatever you’re making will spread once it gets outside the lab." 

Nature is beautiful often because it is imperfect. And if Disneyland were to spill out and over the rest of the country, the world, and consume the mountains and rivers, making them "perfect", is that really a world we want to live in? 

I don't think so. But then, I'm brought back, again and again, to this. And suddenly, once again, I'm torn. Because it isn't about annoyances anymore, but lives. Hundreds of thousands of them. 

Suddenly the answer seems pretty clear.

But is it? 

Ridding the world of mosquitoes is an act of playing God, but without the ability to see the future of consequence. We get to decide what has the right to live and what doesn't. We bypass natural selection and head straight for extinction. 

What then? And will it be worth it?

 

Should we kill all mosquitoes? 

 

For more on . . .

-N- Stuff  :  Nature

A Tribute to Stephen Hawking

We are all time travelers, journeying together into the future. Let us work together to make a future a place we want to visit.

 

Using various lines from various speeches, melodysheep has put together an truly inspirational video that celebrates the "life and message" of one of the greatest minds of our time.

He also has videos celebrating Princess Leia, Robin Williams, and science

 

For more on . . .

-N- Stuff   :  Inspiring Art