Please first start by watching CGP Gray's video on automating human jobs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
To summarise: There is perhaps no area of work that a robot will not be able to almost completely take over. Professional, creator, white or blue collar.
I'd like to use this piece to pose a few questions, to myself and any readers. Without too much delving into the background reading.
Should we fear being left without jobs?
Just as automation of a horse's work led to the decline of their population, the same will perhaps happen here too. Seen already in developed nations - the mechanism for decline here is perhaps similar in the long run to the decline that will come from automation.
I see that efficiency of work saves the need to use more people. When, in a developing nation, a mother may perhaps need additional children to guarantee a good income for the family unit, the same pressure is not applicable in eg. UK - the work each human can do earns the equivalent output of many less efficient workers. In a world then where one robot can do the work of many many humans, is the population driven up or down? It may appear that the poverty generated by the loosing of jobs would spur the population to improve as by the same developing nations mechanism of increasing number to secure gains.
The answer I have is that with increased efficiency comes greater economic output and on the same lines, (the potential for) greater quality of life for all its citizens whether in the form of benefit relief or health care and so on. (The side question here concerning the rising inequality and staggering gains difference between the top 1% and 'the rest' is entirely concerning in this futuristic example, but won't be discussed...)
We hope, and should (demand to) expect, therefore that the tendency of the improving general societal efficiency leads to an improved quality of life (qol) for all.
And as someone concerned with qol from a medical perspective this can only be a good thing.
Where this tendency leads now to the individual with no need to work for their income, for the state (no where near as well no it, perhaps 'collective' is a better word) to provide for each other, there will be no pressure on a human not to do what they want and when. Outside of the bounds of our understanding of universal law.
In that sense the next question is. If one had only to play all day. There was no work. Whatever one wanted was to be provided for, what is the point of life.
I should add the following points:
1. With personal communication already made very efficient, and the need for verbal communication becoming less and less apt, what is the future for social interaction, if any? One can find the answer to all questions in no time - why ask your friend the capital city of Europa is when Siri's great grandson will tell before you've even finished that thought. Catching up is as easy as a Skype call.
The point is then, why do we communicate and build physical personal relationships? I mean, cynically if not for the enjoyment we can get with better communication then does that just leave sex and physical intimacy? Please tell me if there is anything else one cannot do over the internet already (not withholding any dreamed of advances in the future). If we cannot totally replace sex and physical intimacy, and if there is still a want for these then perhaps the bedroom is the one space where efficiency is rejected.
2. What would be the point to life. Where everything is easy, travelling is easy, communicating, enjoying oneself and indulging fiction - where everything is accessible and where your wildest dreams are possible instantly, one would surely have run out of things to do and become bored perhaps literally to death long before the medically limited age is reached?
Humans hedonisticly adapt; they get bored of things that they used to enjoy. And when one is 'ruined' by mass fantasy early on what is there to look forward, to strive towards and savour. Perhaps the reason the best meaning for life I have found myself accepting is the meaning of life is to simply enjoy oneself (and if you can, help others to enjoy themselves too). In that sense, we work, we survive so that we can enjoy greater and better things in our life. I study, so to earn more money, to open more doors and experience more things I would life. The questions stands then that if one does not work for what they want, what is the point of life.
I should like to interject with the best example to the contrary I can think of. Humans are interesting creatures. As I am not a zoologist I cannot say for sure if there are any other animals who make their ow lives harder for the seer fun of it. My example; growing one's own fruit and veg. Why do we bother with window boxes and allotment patches when the stuff in the shops is better (if you shop in the right place), cheaper financially, spatially and horologically. I cannot rightly anticipate why, just that we do and enjoy so. We like a challenge despite the perhaps evolutionary disadvantage? There may be hope then that a future life in those greater buildings in the future you can find pictures of will be one of relaxing (if there is relaxing when there are not stressors to relax from) and there are challenges and spiritual/self satisfying rewards.
Perhaps there is some solace in knowing one would never be able to design a building as well or build a birdhouse as nice as a robot. (Arguably pieces of music and literature would still, although perhaps not as good as what a robot could produce, present the emotional relateability of knowing a human sweat over this work).
3. An interesting aside is that happiness/health outcomes and relates itself your standing of the social scale. Are you better off than your neighbour, your husband's brother etc? Where everyone has everything they want, is there still equality or not? No. But when human time is now literally worth nothing would be not all be equal in that we serve little to no purpose now, other than personal satisfaction?
In conclusion though - I hope this very short dip into this has opened some ideas for you as much as it has me. A few conclusions:
1. I think that humans actually do need some struggle in their lives - to a) make the relax time more proportionately rewarding and infrequent, b) to bring to oneself the vulnerability that founds the emotional connection between individuals c) fulfill an evolutionary want for further understanding of mechanisms.
2. I do believe that human society is tending and will tend towards greater wealth distribution and inequality, for NOBODY's overall proportional benefit. Checks will go in place to reduce the effect, but I think (and will need to think more to clarify to myself) that one's happiness is related to how much better of (financially, personally, even down to the most trivial of things) than others they are up to a point - where one has any difference others will always be jealous of it. Grass is always greener etc.
3. Where there is unlimited resources to sustain a population and very little selection pressure one should think how they would spend their time - what would their life mean?
But the biggest questions is perhaps, when people loose their jobs in this faster pace of automation where to they go until we get to the utopia of burdenlessness. Does the quality of life increases for the whole population (if the 1% do not skim it off) reduce the poverty they face? And in that case, how many professionals need to be automated before we get to a functional level of nobody working? I think the answer if far fewer than we think. A state wage is not far away and with actual, positive progressive socially liberating and educating policy we can get a world where nobody needs to a) work and b) struggle unnecessarily. The question is, is this a world we want - and what would we do with it when it happens?
Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Civil Liberties
With the Porn Bill outlined yesterday we see yet another restriction on what we can do. The aim of the bill has been advertised to help reduce the spread of child porn, which is good, we all want to stop the spread of child porn. The problem is that as well as measures to stop people from accessing and distributing child porn, the government has added onto this bill many measures that have nothing to do with stopping child porn and only mean to restrict what we can do.
So, the details: There is actually very little proposed to be done that would actually reduce the spread of child porn - there would be an agreement with internet providers to stop results coming up when you search for specific words related to indecent images of children. This has been criticised already by internet companies who rightly, in my opinion, think this would do little to stop the spread, if people want to get their hands on this sort of thing, I should imagine they could.
The rest of this porn bill will mean that there are "family filters" set up on EVERY internet source that would block out porn and what the government deems to be "indecent images". To access porn the household would have to contact the internet supplier and explicitly ask for porn. Can you image something more degrading? It totally feels like crawling on your hands and knees begging to the companies for your porn.
I have three MAJOR issues with this part of the bill that would do NOTHING to stop the spread of child pornography; again, this bill is a restriction on our civil liberties, under the guise of stopping child porn. This is EXACTLY how fascist systems start. I'm a STAR WARS fan, and this is literally the technique that the Emperor used to get supreme power over the galaxy, passing bills under the disguise of something that everyone can agree on, like stopping child porn, but really the hidden part takes away our freedoms - this has got to be stopped.
The first major issue I have is that from the Edward Snowden leaks of the NSA and the prism programs, we no know that the government has accesses to LITERALLY EVERYTHING you have online - they can find out the content of the emails you send, the websites you go on, how long and often you go on them, this issue deserves a blogpost in its own right. The issue arises that why does there need to be any measures in place to restrict child porn in the first place? (Don't get me wrong, there should be, but hear this point out) They already have the ability to find out the ISPs of those searching for child porn online, so why don't they actually use the personal data they stole from us to actually some good use?
The second and biggest, in my opinion major issue is that whenever the government gets involved in your private lives to this extent it's, in my opinion a bad thing. As I mentioned above the filter would act to "stop anything the government considers indecent images". This is FAR too much power for the government to have to decide what is 'indecent', next year they could decide that viewing any communist material is indecent, or that viewing any Islamic media is indecent and they could easily do it with this state-controlled filter. This bill could be the start of something dangerous, a true propaganda state.
Another point; there is already the option on most browsers I know of to start family filters on websites, so why does the government need to step in a have an overarching one? Are you THAT lazy a parent that you need the government to stop your 8 year from accidentally stumbling onto indecent images that you can't set up the block yourself? That's all it comes down to.
Now, it can be argued, and I could possibly be convinced into think that an Opt-In system, where you ask the government to block indecent images on your computer, rather than an Opt-Out where you have to ask the government to view porn, would be better. It would partially avoid everyone being guilt tripped and shamed about viewing porn and also the chance for the government to collect even more information about your personal lives. I still think that you can put blocks up to avoid porn if that's what you want to do - the government can stay out of the whole thing! Asking to receive porn would only 'flag yourself' up to the government and make them more likely to spy on what you're doing.
Third major point is that if you're not the one who pays the bill for the internet you have no say in whether you can get porn. The issue is I still think it's always been weird that age of consent (that you can legally have sex) is 16, yet the age you need to be is 18! If anything this should be lowered. This system of Opt-out would mean that even as an adult living with someone else, ie living under a landlord who administrates your internet subscribtion, or living with your parents; they would have to put themselves out there so that you can get access to porn. How embarrassing, degrading and generally perverse is that. I want to do what I want to do, not have to grovel to my mom to ask her to opt out of these "family filters". So ridiculous.
You can protect society adequately by sensible social programs to reduce poverty, regulate organisations where appropriate and provide adequate policing. You do not need to restrict civil liberties to do this! It is the easy, lazy governments way of doing things. Tapping everyone's phones is I'm sure a more less intellectually strenuous way to reduce crime or preemptive crime, but at what cost to society? If thought was put into bringing people out of poverty, tackling race relations how much more would crime go down? Lazy, lazy governments.
Some coverage on the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACrrGTiV1VI&noredirect=1
E-petitions are an initative to help the British public get what they want to be debated in the house of commons. If a petition gets 100,000 signatures (and follows certain criteria) it HAS to be debated in the commons. It is often one of the most effective ways of getting a point of view expressed and debated by those who can make the decisions, and shows that there is enough clout that people want something done on a topic. I've already signed the petition and I think it would help, if you agree with it, if you did too - upon writing this the petition has about 15,000 signatures and has only been out 2 days! Link to the government petition: https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
Until next time guys :) cx
So, the details: There is actually very little proposed to be done that would actually reduce the spread of child porn - there would be an agreement with internet providers to stop results coming up when you search for specific words related to indecent images of children. This has been criticised already by internet companies who rightly, in my opinion, think this would do little to stop the spread, if people want to get their hands on this sort of thing, I should imagine they could.
The rest of this porn bill will mean that there are "family filters" set up on EVERY internet source that would block out porn and what the government deems to be "indecent images". To access porn the household would have to contact the internet supplier and explicitly ask for porn. Can you image something more degrading? It totally feels like crawling on your hands and knees begging to the companies for your porn.
I have three MAJOR issues with this part of the bill that would do NOTHING to stop the spread of child pornography; again, this bill is a restriction on our civil liberties, under the guise of stopping child porn. This is EXACTLY how fascist systems start. I'm a STAR WARS fan, and this is literally the technique that the Emperor used to get supreme power over the galaxy, passing bills under the disguise of something that everyone can agree on, like stopping child porn, but really the hidden part takes away our freedoms - this has got to be stopped.
The first major issue I have is that from the Edward Snowden leaks of the NSA and the prism programs, we no know that the government has accesses to LITERALLY EVERYTHING you have online - they can find out the content of the emails you send, the websites you go on, how long and often you go on them, this issue deserves a blogpost in its own right. The issue arises that why does there need to be any measures in place to restrict child porn in the first place? (Don't get me wrong, there should be, but hear this point out) They already have the ability to find out the ISPs of those searching for child porn online, so why don't they actually use the personal data they stole from us to actually some good use?
Another point; there is already the option on most browsers I know of to start family filters on websites, so why does the government need to step in a have an overarching one? Are you THAT lazy a parent that you need the government to stop your 8 year from accidentally stumbling onto indecent images that you can't set up the block yourself? That's all it comes down to.
Now, it can be argued, and I could possibly be convinced into think that an Opt-In system, where you ask the government to block indecent images on your computer, rather than an Opt-Out where you have to ask the government to view porn, would be better. It would partially avoid everyone being guilt tripped and shamed about viewing porn and also the chance for the government to collect even more information about your personal lives. I still think that you can put blocks up to avoid porn if that's what you want to do - the government can stay out of the whole thing! Asking to receive porn would only 'flag yourself' up to the government and make them more likely to spy on what you're doing.
Third major point is that if you're not the one who pays the bill for the internet you have no say in whether you can get porn. The issue is I still think it's always been weird that age of consent (that you can legally have sex) is 16, yet the age you need to be is 18! If anything this should be lowered. This system of Opt-out would mean that even as an adult living with someone else, ie living under a landlord who administrates your internet subscribtion, or living with your parents; they would have to put themselves out there so that you can get access to porn. How embarrassing, degrading and generally perverse is that. I want to do what I want to do, not have to grovel to my mom to ask her to opt out of these "family filters". So ridiculous.
You can protect society adequately by sensible social programs to reduce poverty, regulate organisations where appropriate and provide adequate policing. You do not need to restrict civil liberties to do this! It is the easy, lazy governments way of doing things. Tapping everyone's phones is I'm sure a more less intellectually strenuous way to reduce crime or preemptive crime, but at what cost to society? If thought was put into bringing people out of poverty, tackling race relations how much more would crime go down? Lazy, lazy governments.
Some coverage on the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACrrGTiV1VI&noredirect=1
E-petitions are an initative to help the British public get what they want to be debated in the house of commons. If a petition gets 100,000 signatures (and follows certain criteria) it HAS to be debated in the commons. It is often one of the most effective ways of getting a point of view expressed and debated by those who can make the decisions, and shows that there is enough clout that people want something done on a topic. I've already signed the petition and I think it would help, if you agree with it, if you did too - upon writing this the petition has about 15,000 signatures and has only been out 2 days! Link to the government petition: https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
Until next time guys :) cx
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
THE debate; an hallway chat review.
So I was in my first proper debate late last week. The proposition was "This house supports the motion that euthanasia should be available on the NHS"
If you can't immediately guess that I was on the 'for' side of this argument, then it's a good job I just told you.
So a lot of the time in debates people don't actually believe a lot of the arguments they are putting forward, but in this case I did wholeheartedly. It was weird in that because I got into this subject so much with background research I convinced myself on a few separate times that this wasn't the way to go and my position changed. But once I considered it all through and gone down all paths of reasoning I did conclude that, in my opinion it is completely the logical and legitimate position to take.
We were promised that the dean was coming to this debate. This, the dean of the whole college, the guy you want to know your name. We were all pretty heads in books preparing to make this the best thing we could muster; sidelining actual medicine for a whole week to focus. In the end the dean didn't show up. Damn. But not all was lost as most of my tutors, biochem lecturers and public health professors turned up.
The event turned into a networking exercise and I'm pleased to say I think I really pulled it off. I've had two professors who literally before this would not differentiate my face from the rest of my year come up to me and say that I was really good (one commenting I was the best debater there). It felt good, omg =3.
There seems to be quite a lot of hype around the medics debating society now, which until this inaugural debate had like 6 members, and we will see tomorrow just how many people turn up for it. I reckon, 20 maybe? It would be nice.
Otherwise, yeah everything's good, thanks for asking. Feeling rather tired though, felt myself slacking a bit as of late; can't wait till easter breaak.
Until next time cx
If you can't immediately guess that I was on the 'for' side of this argument, then it's a good job I just told you.
So a lot of the time in debates people don't actually believe a lot of the arguments they are putting forward, but in this case I did wholeheartedly. It was weird in that because I got into this subject so much with background research I convinced myself on a few separate times that this wasn't the way to go and my position changed. But once I considered it all through and gone down all paths of reasoning I did conclude that, in my opinion it is completely the logical and legitimate position to take.
We were promised that the dean was coming to this debate. This, the dean of the whole college, the guy you want to know your name. We were all pretty heads in books preparing to make this the best thing we could muster; sidelining actual medicine for a whole week to focus. In the end the dean didn't show up. Damn. But not all was lost as most of my tutors, biochem lecturers and public health professors turned up.
The event turned into a networking exercise and I'm pleased to say I think I really pulled it off. I've had two professors who literally before this would not differentiate my face from the rest of my year come up to me and say that I was really good (one commenting I was the best debater there). It felt good, omg =3.
There seems to be quite a lot of hype around the medics debating society now, which until this inaugural debate had like 6 members, and we will see tomorrow just how many people turn up for it. I reckon, 20 maybe? It would be nice.
Otherwise, yeah everything's good, thanks for asking. Feeling rather tired though, felt myself slacking a bit as of late; can't wait till easter breaak.
Until next time cx
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Marriage; for you and you and you! Marriage for all!
So Britain (by which I mean England and Wales) today legalized same sex marriage, thus finally joining the western world.
We became part of that special group including; Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and several states in Brazil, Mexico and the US.
(I must also mentioned at this point in my usual cynical way that this is not yet into law, but has at least passed through one house; the commons - to go through completely the Lords must first debate it and then the Queen sign it off - commentators do not see this as a problem however.)
I feel that generally this has never been an issue for most people in the country, despite the 175 'no's to the left'. The arguments against this have literally ALL been religious ones that can a) be dismissed in a biblical scholastic sense as well as b) floored completely from a human rights point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHcz6kcMIJA - is a cool show that offers some straight forward views on the subject.
The main one is that by equating marriage it will undermine the whole institution. In my opinion marriage is a complete farce, not necessarily the best way to structure society and is failing anyway. I'll explain my points about this specifically in a later blog I'm sure. So in some respects I do think that this bill today will help undermine marriage - by taking away its exclusivity from those Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditionalists who want Gays as far away from their culture as possible. This breaking down of religious 'purity' is important in helping to quash it in the long run.
I'm also glad for once, of the connected church and state, so that these points can be talked about properly - it is COMPLETELY the issue of the state to talk about these things as they are so closely linked. Republics (usually intended secular states) I fear can sometimes hide behind the "it's none of our business" card when it suits them.
Religious freedom however means that only those who want to perform these ceremonies, would do, which is EXACTLY how it should be. I hear often that those opposed feel that the slippery slope will lead them to a point where they are forced to conduct these ceremonies but this is simply not going to happen:
- Religious freedom trumps church-state - much like today where another human right has trumped the church-state.
The argument that I see is this: Marriage is a religious ceremony where followers unite under the rules and watch of god. It is a religious ceremony and so shouldn't it simply follow its religious customs? The answer; no. For a start marriage now a days is so dilute, so entirely different from the ceremonies that have taken place in the past; for a start you can now marry between races, the woman isn't automatically the subservient locked up housewife, divorce is as common as anything else now a days and dowries are long gone in most places. The fact that it has been changing so quickly is just a natural societal progression, of which equal marriage is the next step.
The final point is the question "Why are civil partnerships not good enough?". They convey exactly the same rights as a marriage and are no different other than by name and genders of those involved. The reasons in my opinion come like this. For one, when someone puts on a form that they are in a civil partnership it immediately signals their sexuality out. It's sad to say that some people are still discriminated against because of this in job applications or work visas etc and this points them straight out. Civil partnerships are a way therefore of segregation - 'you're different so have to go into this group'. They are collected together because of a specific feature and in direct comparison if there was a policy where only black people could undergo this civil action purely because they are different, there would be utter uproar (which is what there has rightfully been from the Gay community).
Second to this is that there are in fact many religious gay people, gay Anglican ministers, bishops (and of course gay paedophilic catholic priests) are not uncommon. To them the religious aspect is important and in this case their religious freedom is violated and therefore entirely unjust. If it wasn't for the religious connotations in this debate I would imagine the European Court of Human rights would have stepped in a long time ago.
'And I leave you with this thought' - which undermines the institution of marriage more, Brittany Spears' 30 minute marriage which announces violently clearly that it simply means NOTHING, absolutely nothing, or same sex loving commitment?
Until next time xx
We became part of that special group including; Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and several states in Brazil, Mexico and the US.
(I must also mentioned at this point in my usual cynical way that this is not yet into law, but has at least passed through one house; the commons - to go through completely the Lords must first debate it and then the Queen sign it off - commentators do not see this as a problem however.)
I feel that generally this has never been an issue for most people in the country, despite the 175 'no's to the left'. The arguments against this have literally ALL been religious ones that can a) be dismissed in a biblical scholastic sense as well as b) floored completely from a human rights point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHcz6kcMIJA - is a cool show that offers some straight forward views on the subject.
The main one is that by equating marriage it will undermine the whole institution. In my opinion marriage is a complete farce, not necessarily the best way to structure society and is failing anyway. I'll explain my points about this specifically in a later blog I'm sure. So in some respects I do think that this bill today will help undermine marriage - by taking away its exclusivity from those Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditionalists who want Gays as far away from their culture as possible. This breaking down of religious 'purity' is important in helping to quash it in the long run.
I'm also glad for once, of the connected church and state, so that these points can be talked about properly - it is COMPLETELY the issue of the state to talk about these things as they are so closely linked. Republics (usually intended secular states) I fear can sometimes hide behind the "it's none of our business" card when it suits them.
Religious freedom however means that only those who want to perform these ceremonies, would do, which is EXACTLY how it should be. I hear often that those opposed feel that the slippery slope will lead them to a point where they are forced to conduct these ceremonies but this is simply not going to happen:
- Religious freedom trumps church-state - much like today where another human right has trumped the church-state.
The argument that I see is this: Marriage is a religious ceremony where followers unite under the rules and watch of god. It is a religious ceremony and so shouldn't it simply follow its religious customs? The answer; no. For a start marriage now a days is so dilute, so entirely different from the ceremonies that have taken place in the past; for a start you can now marry between races, the woman isn't automatically the subservient locked up housewife, divorce is as common as anything else now a days and dowries are long gone in most places. The fact that it has been changing so quickly is just a natural societal progression, of which equal marriage is the next step.
The final point is the question "Why are civil partnerships not good enough?". They convey exactly the same rights as a marriage and are no different other than by name and genders of those involved. The reasons in my opinion come like this. For one, when someone puts on a form that they are in a civil partnership it immediately signals their sexuality out. It's sad to say that some people are still discriminated against because of this in job applications or work visas etc and this points them straight out. Civil partnerships are a way therefore of segregation - 'you're different so have to go into this group'. They are collected together because of a specific feature and in direct comparison if there was a policy where only black people could undergo this civil action purely because they are different, there would be utter uproar (which is what there has rightfully been from the Gay community).
Second to this is that there are in fact many religious gay people, gay Anglican ministers, bishops (and of course gay paedophilic catholic priests) are not uncommon. To them the religious aspect is important and in this case their religious freedom is violated and therefore entirely unjust. If it wasn't for the religious connotations in this debate I would imagine the European Court of Human rights would have stepped in a long time ago.
'And I leave you with this thought' - which undermines the institution of marriage more, Brittany Spears' 30 minute marriage which announces violently clearly that it simply means NOTHING, absolutely nothing, or same sex loving commitment?
Until next time xx
Monday, 28 January 2013
Comment from a Jigsaw puzzle
So, as part of my course we have what's called 'Jigsaw'. (I can only assume it comes from 'filling in the pieces of what it is to be a Dr'; as Jigsaw covers a lot of emotional intelligence, ethics, morality, personal development etc that can't be formally taught in a hospital setting)
As part of these we're asked to debate certain areas and one of these that took our tutor's particular interest was whether children should be told about Santa or the tooth fairy or gods or so on.
My reply to the argument strain on the private forum we have as a group is below: Just thought it provoke some opinion in many other people too, so why not share:
___________________________________________
So the question is; Is it fair on children to tell them something that is untrue for example Santa, the tooth fair or a god?
It may well be the thing to do culturally or because it's an easily accessible medium through which to tell children right from wrong, but I feel that children will make up their own imaginary friends; mystique and wonder, and find it in books and movies without the need to tell them that these myths are the (gospel) truth.
I feel even Santa, the omnipresent coal giver is as bad as a god in sense that he can see everything you ever do (which I always found rather perverse). It takes the stance that fear of even thinking badly will result in consequences and I think that this shouldn't be the way to raise a child.
Not only that but it primes children to a world of the other supernaturals, ghosts and ghouls, which with parental endorsement may act to create a sense of fear and powerlessness in the child, imagine if a parent told their child Harry Potter was completely true and they became fearful of dementors, basilisks and nargles... I know I was scared of ghosts after my mom told me she thought they existed then proceeded, a few months later, to tell me the previous owner of our house hung himself in our garage; bitch). With children's imaginations running amuck as they do anyway, I see no need to add to it with parental confirmation of omniscient, omnipresent judges of character (especially when these sprites involve themselves with sexual matters and other areas where the person may have a hard time figuring it out for themselves).
___________________________________________
When the debate gets fully underway I might compile some of the best arguments and re-buttes into another blog post so we see a following argument.
What'd'you think?
Until next time xx
As part of these we're asked to debate certain areas and one of these that took our tutor's particular interest was whether children should be told about Santa or the tooth fairy or gods or so on.
My reply to the argument strain on the private forum we have as a group is below: Just thought it provoke some opinion in many other people too, so why not share:
___________________________________________
So the question is; Is it fair on children to tell them something that is untrue for example Santa, the tooth fair or a god?
It may well be the thing to do culturally or because it's an easily accessible medium through which to tell children right from wrong, but I feel that children will make up their own imaginary friends; mystique and wonder, and find it in books and movies without the need to tell them that these myths are the (gospel) truth.
I feel even Santa, the omnipresent coal giver is as bad as a god in sense that he can see everything you ever do (which I always found rather perverse). It takes the stance that fear of even thinking badly will result in consequences and I think that this shouldn't be the way to raise a child.
Not only that but it primes children to a world of the other supernaturals, ghosts and ghouls, which with parental endorsement may act to create a sense of fear and powerlessness in the child, imagine if a parent told their child Harry Potter was completely true and they became fearful of dementors, basilisks and nargles... I know I was scared of ghosts after my mom told me she thought they existed then proceeded, a few months later, to tell me the previous owner of our house hung himself in our garage; bitch). With children's imaginations running amuck as they do anyway, I see no need to add to it with parental confirmation of omniscient, omnipresent judges of character (especially when these sprites involve themselves with sexual matters and other areas where the person may have a hard time figuring it out for themselves).
___________________________________________
When the debate gets fully underway I might compile some of the best arguments and re-buttes into another blog post so we see a following argument.
What'd'you think?
Until next time xx
Friday, 28 December 2012
A short digression on genital mutilation.
[Whilst the content of this post may seem weird and perhaps crude to some, understand it came as a perfectly natural progression from my studies (which have been almost exclusively on sexual health) so far at medical school.]
If circumcision had not been taught to us as a perfectly reasonable cultural concept in school would we think of it now as something stranger? I mean, it IS the removal of a part of the body - by definition, mutilation. The questions are; is this right? Moral? Helpful? Safe? Essential in cultural appreciation?
Jews and some Islamic and Christian branches participate in removal of the foreskin very near birth (because man was made in God's image... but not that bit; as Hitchen's pointed out whenever the subject was raised) for religious reasons. But are there any inadvertent benefits that result from it?
The short answer is yes:
Circumcision is seen as a significant preventative treatment in the transmission of AIDS. The main pathway is expected to be the removal of groups of Langerhans cells in the foreskin. These cells are localised CD4 cells and are one of the key target sites for HIV infection. The removal of these therefore reduces the chances that the HIV gets a hold in the affected. There are voluntary circumcision programs all across high prevalence areas (where heterosexual spread is the most common; Botswana (24% rate), Lesotho (23%), Namibia (15%) where positive results have been consistently seen, with up to 60% effectiveness in reduction of transmission rates.
Another benefit is the ease in cleaning under the foreskin, around the corona without foreskin. Whilst infection due to lack of cleaning is uncommon, it is still an issue. Accumulation of smegma under the glands penis can eventually lead to balanitis (inflammation of the corona and hence pain and often infection). Phimosis (inability to retract foreskin) is often the result of balanitis and general miscare of one's penis. This condition in cases has been seen to directly be linked to penile carcinoma and urinary retention. The point is that with proper care there isn't an issue. Yet there will always be some who aren't informed about about washing under the foreskin and in these cases, say hypothetically if all men were circumcised, this would be reduced.
Along with the possible benefits that no foreskin gives there are always downsides. The most prominent one is the fact that this procedure is minor surgery, and like any surgery carries potential infection and side effects. Nomiya churches in Kenya for example, or Islamic communities in Turkmenistan often do not perform this surgery under sterile conditions; the result, infection. There are still cases each year in the most developed countries of infection or excessive bleeding (as the very young boy had undiscovered hemophilia). Cases of some practices by ultra-orthodox groups have led to the death of children (2 this year) after they contracted herpes from the oral-sucking circumcision performing Rabi. (Seriously.)
Another negative point (in my opinion anyway) is that the sensitivity of the penis is reduced and therefore sexual enjoyment too. The head of the penis is highly innervated by nerves with the most concentrated parts being the glands and corona. Removal of the foreskin exposes these areas which build up a thicker layer of skin in an attempt to protect it. The constant stimulation of these areas reduces the nervous intensity and leads to a subconscious hedonistic adaptation to the individual - overall reducing the sexual enjoyment of the individual. I personally think this is wrong - the foreskin is an evolutionary adaptation to stop the desensitisation, and make sex more likely and removal of it seems like a move to semi-castrate a person, reducing their sexual experiences, this, in my opinion, without consent is completely unjust.
The argument in this debate is that should genital mutilation be a choice made by a competent adult or be allowed to be the choice of the parent? I would argue that the benefits to the child (in a developed society with low HIV rates etc.) are not enough to justify mutilation. If a culture wants circumcision then it should allow a choice for the child themselves, where they are informed of the pros (getting into heaven??) and the negatives.
A few of the links to extra reading stuff:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/13/nyc-approves-ritual-circumcision-consent-form/
If circumcision had not been taught to us as a perfectly reasonable cultural concept in school would we think of it now as something stranger? I mean, it IS the removal of a part of the body - by definition, mutilation. The questions are; is this right? Moral? Helpful? Safe? Essential in cultural appreciation?
Jews and some Islamic and Christian branches participate in removal of the foreskin very near birth (because man was made in God's image... but not that bit; as Hitchen's pointed out whenever the subject was raised) for religious reasons. But are there any inadvertent benefits that result from it?
The short answer is yes:
Circumcision is seen as a significant preventative treatment in the transmission of AIDS. The main pathway is expected to be the removal of groups of Langerhans cells in the foreskin. These cells are localised CD4 cells and are one of the key target sites for HIV infection. The removal of these therefore reduces the chances that the HIV gets a hold in the affected. There are voluntary circumcision programs all across high prevalence areas (where heterosexual spread is the most common; Botswana (24% rate), Lesotho (23%), Namibia (15%) where positive results have been consistently seen, with up to 60% effectiveness in reduction of transmission rates.
Another benefit is the ease in cleaning under the foreskin, around the corona without foreskin. Whilst infection due to lack of cleaning is uncommon, it is still an issue. Accumulation of smegma under the glands penis can eventually lead to balanitis (inflammation of the corona and hence pain and often infection). Phimosis (inability to retract foreskin) is often the result of balanitis and general miscare of one's penis. This condition in cases has been seen to directly be linked to penile carcinoma and urinary retention. The point is that with proper care there isn't an issue. Yet there will always be some who aren't informed about about washing under the foreskin and in these cases, say hypothetically if all men were circumcised, this would be reduced.
Along with the possible benefits that no foreskin gives there are always downsides. The most prominent one is the fact that this procedure is minor surgery, and like any surgery carries potential infection and side effects. Nomiya churches in Kenya for example, or Islamic communities in Turkmenistan often do not perform this surgery under sterile conditions; the result, infection. There are still cases each year in the most developed countries of infection or excessive bleeding (as the very young boy had undiscovered hemophilia). Cases of some practices by ultra-orthodox groups have led to the death of children (2 this year) after they contracted herpes from the oral-sucking circumcision performing Rabi. (Seriously.)
Another negative point (in my opinion anyway) is that the sensitivity of the penis is reduced and therefore sexual enjoyment too. The head of the penis is highly innervated by nerves with the most concentrated parts being the glands and corona. Removal of the foreskin exposes these areas which build up a thicker layer of skin in an attempt to protect it. The constant stimulation of these areas reduces the nervous intensity and leads to a subconscious hedonistic adaptation to the individual - overall reducing the sexual enjoyment of the individual. I personally think this is wrong - the foreskin is an evolutionary adaptation to stop the desensitisation, and make sex more likely and removal of it seems like a move to semi-castrate a person, reducing their sexual experiences, this, in my opinion, without consent is completely unjust.
The argument in this debate is that should genital mutilation be a choice made by a competent adult or be allowed to be the choice of the parent? I would argue that the benefits to the child (in a developed society with low HIV rates etc.) are not enough to justify mutilation. If a culture wants circumcision then it should allow a choice for the child themselves, where they are informed of the pros (getting into heaven??) and the negatives.
A few of the links to extra reading stuff:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/13/nyc-approves-ritual-circumcision-consent-form/
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
I want my own room! (NOW!)
Truly I only get angry a few times a year - this new CBBC program called "I want my own room" is one of those things that makes me just so angry.
The premise: A child has their room renovated or a new room built so that they have their own space to do whatever they want. Similarly to other 'make over' programs, it's of very nice design, done in a couple of days and of course, free to the family.
What makes me fuming is that so far all of the children that have had room renovations or new rooms built, had their own bedrooms already - perfectly fine and better than most peoples'. They have houses with double garages, with two working parents, with so much more than most. The child yesterday NEEDED a room to play his piano in, (well another one, he had the piano in the living room, but that was no good as family members use it to watch TV in; and he can't use his bedroom for his piano as it's too hard to get a piano up the stairs.) Shut up, you selfish ungrateful twat. So this guys gets an extension to put his piano in, free of charge to him, paid for by the license fee payers. There are millions of children in Britain sharing rooms, or who have no rooms, or sleep on the floor. How the hell can the BBC justify aiding the greedy rich?
Today was a boy who wanted a new room because his was 'cluttered and only had one chair' and well, turns out guys that justifies a make over!
Whether the child wants a rehearsal room or a 'business room' (how many fucking 10 year-olds need business rooms; my arse) they seem to get it. These children have no other sob stories, no illness or family deaths (which I would concede may justify this kind of program; as more of a charitable gesture.)
I WANT MY OWN ROOM as a title in the first place makes the show sound greedy, repugnant and disrespectful in a way. It must give so little hope to those children who do live in poverty who do indeed NEED their own room, not some fat kid with only 2 rooms to play piano in.
Even if the families did pay for it themselves, I'd still feel as though the show would be insulting to people, with the rich blatantly showing off their wealth; it sends a message that those less well off should know their place - that they don't get new things, or to be on TV, simply because they're not well off. Jealousy, disillusionment, and quite simply sadness; I don't agree with this show:
Until nest time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
