After wisdom there is peace,freedom, and focus. Before wisdom there is everything else.
I absolutely loved this quote and I think it reflects a truth so many people don’t see. If they don’t significant results fast, they quickly conclude all is lost:
“Complaining that a protest won’t change the world is like complaining that giving out your phone number won’t make someone marry you. It starts a conversation and opens up a world of possibilities”
— Drew Winter
I don’t like or agree with every view that Dr. Peter Singer has. I do love reading his short essays. First, he is a real philosopher who still knows how to talk to and write for the general public. Second, his opinions are usually based on a chain of reasoning. I know that should be a given for a philosopher, but the subjects I have read Singer’s views on are usually filled with people basing their opinions on strong emotions and pretending not to have noticed any surrounding facts. Instead of getting wind blown at me when asking about an opinion , I get reason from Dr. Singer. Dr. Singer also avoids getting personal, which I can’t say the same for some of his critics.
In this online essay for the New York Times Dr. Singer discusses deciding whether or not to have children from the point of view of the sake of the potential child and of the planet.
Interestingly, I recently learned of a group called “choice moms”. “Choice Moms” are single women who have made the decision to have a child, on their own, sans having a partner in their life or a father in their child’s life. My impression was that such decisions were driven by the desires of the mother and not by whether or not it was good for the child, good for the world.
Dr. Singer brings up that point, but in a unique way. He makes the point that people only consider the welfare of a potential child if that child will be born into a bad situation like a physical handicap. With just about 7 billion people on the planet with the threat of 11 billion by 2050 ( http://tinyurl.com/currentpopulation ) Dr. Singer asks if people should begin weighing the decision to give birth for children who would also be born into optimal circumstances.
Going beyond the mundane ( as well looming, threatening, and important ) issues of what life will be like in a more overpopulated world, Dr. Singer brings up a point by Arthur Schopenhauer, which sounds remarkably similar to some points in early Buddhism:
The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.
IMHO, this is fairly evident, but life can be worthwhile simply for the pleasure of being alive, relating to people and growing.
Dr. Singer also thinks things are not as dire as Schopenhauer saw it. Dr. Singer then raises an interesting question. If everyone on the planet would agree to not reproduce, would that be a good decision?
Many issues which conscientious people worry about would be gone, as we would soon be gone. We could live it up, leave the Earth to heal itself and become a suitable home to the other species who still inhabit it.
My answer is no. It would not be a good decision.
There would be nobody around to appreciate that peaceful garden, so what would be the point?
Like Singer, I think the human race is headed for some rather unpleasant times, but if we don’t perish in those time I think, as a whole the human race will learn to live in a much better way. That world, is worth having and that world is worth having people in to appreciate it.
Anyway, enough of my blabber. Here is a hyperlink to his essay.
For about 80 years scientists have observed that animals fed complete nutrition, but with slightly less calories tended to live longer and live healthier. Some scientists now believe that people *may* be able to get these benefits by reducing methionine, an amino acid in abundance in animal foods and by reducing their intake of ILGF-1, a hormone found in large amounts in cows milk, which has been linked to breast and prostate cancer:
From
The New Scientist
Interest in calorie restriction began in 1935, when scientists made the surprising discovery that rats on a reduced-calorie diet lived longer, provided they were supplemented with sufficient vitamins and minerals.
…
Mice, for example, live up to 50 per cent longer if their calorie intake is cut by 30 to 50 per cent. What’s more, mammals are protected from a number of age-associated maladies such as cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease.
…
So far, so good. But Fontana has found a notable difference in the way people and animals respond to calorie restriction, and it is not great news. It involves a hormone made by the liver called insulin-like growth factor 1.
…
IGF-1 has emerged as an important promoter of ageing. IGF-1 levels are lower than normal in worms, flies and mice on a restricted diet, and this is thought to be at least partly responsible for their longer lifespan.
…
It’s good news, however, for people already on low-protein diets, like vegans, who avoid eating meat, eggs and dairy products. In 2007, Fontana showed that vegans have lower levels of IGF-1 than meat-eaters (Rejuvenation Research, vol 10, p 225).
…
There may be another reason for vegans to celebrate. Studies on flies and rodents suggest that cutting intake of one particular amino acid, called methionine, lengthens life to a similar degree as calorie restriction. Proteins in meat and other animal products have high levels of methionine, so a vegan diet would score well by that measure, too (Medical Hypotheses, vol 72, p 125).