Monday, October 11, 2010

Changing titles


I am getting myself a bit confused with the technology of these things. Having produced the first three (and no readers yet, although I guess that's not surprising as I haven't done anything about 'spreading the word' and persuading a few people to look at the postings) I found that some bloke had a blog with a remarkably similar name to my 'Threads in the tapestry'. What's more he seems to be some sort of fundamentalist Christian, and I really don't want to be associated with his views. (With regard to the 'Threads...' title, that's also the title of my book at landsberg.org.au, where Diana's book on raising teenagers can also be found.)

As a result of that I changed the name of this blog to 'Ideas and Speculations', but couldn't figure out how change the address, so I'll just leave the postings on this one and encourage you, if you happen to come across it, to visit http://www.ideas-and-speculations.blogspot.com.

On the matter of technology, when I did the blog on African animals I wanted to put a photo of a couple of giraffes that were among the animals we saw on a trip to Botswana last year, but I didn't realise that you have to put pictures in before you publish the thing - you can't do it retrospectively. At least I couldn't find out how to. So here they are.

Giraffes in the Kalahari


Go well

Joe

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Threads3:When should we die?

Folded rocks in the Dimond Gorge, Fitzroy River, north-west Australia - a very old landscape, which helps get human problems into some sort of perspective
This doesn't sound like a very cheerful subject, and I guess it isn't, really. But it's easier to get through life if we face the problems that it throws at us, and look for practical solutions.This is not an attitude that our (western) societies are good at; we'd much rather - generally - duck tough issues and hope they'll go away. Or we take refuge in platitudes and spout half-understood aphorisms that allow us to pretend we have a solution. So I thought it might be interesting to look at the problem of how we, and our society, approach the last days of our lives.
  
The stimulus for this particular polemic was a conversation with a friend of mine, whose mother-in-law is dying. She's an old lady, with dementia, can't look after herself and has largely lost control of her bodily functions. She now has an ugly infection in one of her eyes. It can't be treated, and the doctors are concerned, apparently, that the infection will spread down an optic nerve into her brain and kill her. The only possibly treatment would be to remove the eye.  But why would you do that? What good could it do? The doctors are hamstrung by legal requirements to preserve life, and it seems that's what they have to 'officially' recommend.  No-one wants to make the obvious decision, which must be to do whatever is necessary to ensure she is as comfortable and free of pain as possible, which is likely to involve, as I understand it, large doses of morphine or some similar drug, but take no positive, 'heroic' and expensive action. If the morphine doses are sufficient to 'snuff out the flickering flame of life', well, so be it. The result will be better for all concerned, not least for the old lady lying there in a painful, confused and hopeless little heap.

This discussion is, of course, a 'sub-set' of the arguments about euthanasia which, being an active process, has all sorts of additional complications. We won't go there - at least not this time. My argument is simply that, for all of us, there is a time to die, and nothing is gained by postponing it for a while at the cost of pain, indignity, inconvenience, unpleasant work for all those who have to look after the dying, and the expenditure of ridiculous quantities of material resources - as well as occupation of hospital beds that could be better used by others. There are numerous tales similar to the one I have told here, about people dying of cancer, who go through round after round of unpleasant, inconvenient treatment, often with unpleasant side effects, to (possibly) prolong life for a few months. Why do they do it?


The answer, I suggest, is because that's what's expected. We rush for treatment, and once we're in the hands of the hospitals we tend to lose control of the process. 

Underlying all this is the idea that human life is somehow invaluable. This is quite frequently asserted as if it was completely inarguable. It derives, I believe, from the underlying fear we all have of dying, so we argue that every life - which of course includes ours - must be preserved as long as possible, whatever the cost. This has been developed into doctrine by Christianity and permeates western societies. Well, I think it's a stupid assertion/doctrine/position, which can and should be qualified. When the time comes to die, it would be good to accept the fact and do it well.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Threads2. African animals and human populations

Years ago, before Diana and I were married, we went off in my little Vauxhall – you have to be quite old to remember them – to spend a few days in Wankie game reserve. (That was before Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, when Wankie became Hwangie, but that’s beside the point, as is the fact that my mother was horrified: we WEREN’T married!)

Not long after we entered the reserve we looked up to see, regarding us quizzically over the top of some quite large acacias, the heads of two giraffes, quite close to us. Nothing extraordinary, but the picture is indelibly printed in  my memory. Big eyes, long noses, jaws rhythmically chewing the cud. Graceful necks and astonishing legs. How did all that evolve? They were just the first of the wonderful animals we saw, some of them very close to the car – like the lioness lounging a few metres from the road side, not interested in us or the large herd of buffalo on the other side of water held back by an earth dam.  We watched elephant drinking and splashing about in another dam, in the evening, so close that I rather nervously turned the car so we could move away if they came TOO close. In between times there were all the usual beautiful antelope – impala, kudu, spectacular sable and the little ones, duiker and stembuck. Warthogs, running with their ridiculous tales in the air, were amusing then, and remained so to us over other visits to African wildlife parks, over many years.

You can still go to Africa and see the charismatic megafauna, the birds and antelope, hippos and crocodiles in the rivers but, as human populations increase rapidly, wildlife numbers are crashing across the continent. The reasons are well known: poaching, habitat destruction, direct competition between humans and animals – people who depend for their survival on crops and domestic animals don’t take kindly to either being eaten by wild animals – and all sorts of ecological imbalances. And it’s not just wildlife that is suffering from the impact of rampant human reproduction; across vast areas rural Africa ecosystems are being irreversibly damaged – trees are cut, overgrazing destroys vegetation, soil erosion eats away at the topsoil. There are all sorts of well-meaning, and undoubtedly valuable, programs and groups concerned with halting the degradation and loss of wildlife, but we seldom see any attempt to come to grips with the fundamental, underlying problem: too many people.

Shock; horror! Politically incorrect to an alarming degree! What am I saying? That there should be mass culling of humans? Well, of course not, but it does seem that any discussions of African populations in international forums are circumscribed by furious assertions about racism from the African politicians. This accusation is a throwback to the 1960s, when many African countries were struggling to get rid of colonial rule by various Europeans, but it’s irrelevant now. You can’t solve problems unless you face up to them and pretending that the human population explosion across Africa isn’t a problem is sheer stupidity. If Africans are to enjoy reasonable standards of living they have to stop having so many babies. They can’t expect to achieve the profligate and unsustainable standards we in ‘the west’ indulge in, but they can certainly aspire to better than most of them now have.

The usual answer to this question of population control is that there must be economic development. Then big factor then the women will be better educated, and they will want, and be able, to control their own fertility. But that’s a whole different discussion. I guess the point I want to make here is a more philosophical one: why do humans think their (our) priorities and requirements for living take precedence over every other biological organism? So the earth’s resources must be must be exploited to meet our needs. As part of this attitude we prattle on about the sanctity of life, and frequently make assertions that we should not set limits on the resources that may need to be expended to save a single human life. That’s absurd. But what are the limits, and what determines them. There is a philosophical black hole into which most attempts at rational discussion of the fundamental human dilemma caused by our success as a species disappear.

It’s hard to see solutions. And African animals are only one symptom of the problems. There will be wonderful animals wandering around Africa, doing their thing, for years yet, but I’m not sure my grandchildren could go to that continent and find more than traces of the superbly complex and rich environments that were there not so very long ago. Sad, sad, business.  They have as much right to their time on this planet as we do, but their date with extinction is being brought forward rapidly.

Go well

Joe


Sunday, September 12, 2010

Threads in the tapestry. 1

Well, G'day and greetings to anyone who logs in

This is must first posting, triggered by the fact that I would like to be involved in, and perhaps stimulate, discussion and comment on all sorts of things that interest me. These include the way humans are munching (to a large extent, literally) through the earth's resources, the survival of African animals and ecosystems - I was born and brought up in Africa but have lived in Australia for a long time - as well as the, sometimes bizarre, behaviour of  politicians and the media. I am also happy to explore questions like why people believe in god - and what they mean by that - or whether  human societies are evolving in 'good' or 'bad' directions.  In other words, I am inclined to cast a rather jaundiced and mildly cynical eye of on all sorts of matters relating to life, the universe and everything (now that's original!). Maybe I'll have an original thought - or someone might log in with one; I live in hope.

If I don't get responses, well, too bad. I'll write anyway and maybe, occasionally, someone surfing the overcrowded ether of the world wide web will come across this blog and find something in it that's worth thinking about. In due course I'll probably put up photos or something to relieve the monotony of blocks of text - altho' my guess is that anyone likely to get involved in this sort of stuff might have an attention span long enough to get through some undiluted text. We'll see.

Meanwhile, 

Go well, wherever you are

Joe