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
A hard to get food with a maligned reputation but in-credible, but disputed, health benefits is not an usual thing in the alternative health business. One of the latest is raw milk.
From the June 12th – 18th 2010 edition of The Economist, page 36
http://www.economist.com/node/16322762?story_id=16322762
Public health advocates dispute the health benefits, though, and say that raw milk is inherently risky, especially for children, old people, and anybody with health problems. Between 1998 and 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control, some 1,600 people became sick after drinking the stuff. Nearly 200 were hospitalized and two died. The actual incidence of minor illness may be higher, as many people afflicted by food-borne disease suffer in the privacy of their homes.
John Sheehan, the director dairy safety for the Food and Drug Administration, says that the agency has thoroughly examined the claimed health benefits and found no support for any of them. He adds that regulation cannot guarantee safety: in the states where raw milk is sold legally, there have been nearly three times as many outbreaks of illness as in the states where it is not. Presumably there is also more raw milk drunk in the former group, but there is no good way to measure the size of the illicit market in the latter.
Because of the risk of salmonella and other nasty bugs, it is against the law to sell raw milk across state lines. But more than two dozen states let farmers sell raw milk directly from their farms, subject to various rules, and a handful even allow retail sales. Several states are taking a new look at the issue. A serious blow to the cause came last month in Wisconsin, one of American’s largest dairy states. It already allows incidental sales of raw milk –a few galons here and there — but Jim Doyle, the governor, has vetoed a bill that would have allowed it to be sold more widely.
His veto was something of a surprise. The bill had passed both houses of the state legislature by a healthy margin. Many lawmakers were moved by the idea that allowing raw-milk sales would help small farmers. Mr. Doyle had indicated that he would sign the bill. But after lobbying by the dairy industry and public-health pressure groups, he changed his mind. One concern was that an outbreak caused by dodgy raw milk could damage the reputation of Wisconsin’s entire dairy industry.
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.