Good news (for men)

In a world first, the National Health Service in Britain plans to cut prostate cancer diagnosis times from six weeks to a matter of days. Currently a test for men with prostate cancer requires an MRI scan and a biopsy where a dozen samples are taken, requiring multiple hospital visits. But a new “one-stop” service will be trialled in three west London hospitals which will complete all the necessary tests in one day. The new MRI scan, known as an mpMRI, provides higher quality imagery and provides up to 40% of patients with a same day diagnosis. For people who need a biopsy, ultrasound images with 3D MRI scans are used to target areas for taking tissue samples. The NHS claims the technique virtually eliminates the threat of sepsis.

About5,000 men will be tested over the next two years in three London hospitals, allowing many men to avoid invasive biopsies as well as allowing precision biopsy in those men requiring it. High risk tumours are expected to be found much earlier, and cost-effectively.

As is fairly typical, not everyone thinks the new system is wonderful. Consultant radiologist Dr Anthony Chambers is concerned that men will be pushed through the process far too quickly when all they have a common infection called prostatitis, not cancer. He also fears that the system will divert resources from more urgent conditions. (BBC News, March 3rd)

Why am I raising this medical issue? For a personsl reason – generations of my family on the male side have had prostate cancer, myself included. Most of them died of it. I have two sons. I hope those who follow Epicurus will understand the point. In addition, the poor old NHS gets a bad rap on a daily basis (and is maligned in the US). Nice to report good news!

Religion and the possible discovery of people on other planets

The number of confirmed exoplanets stands at 3,500, of which, scientists believe, at least some are potential Earths, with very similar characteristics. This poses a theological and philosophical conundrum for many religions, especially Christianity, which focuses on mankind and teaches that God created man in his own image, exclusively on our one small planet.

So does God’s creation extend beyond a single planet? If so, do the inhabitants of those planets believe in the same God (gods?) as humans do? Does God, as creator of the universe, deny the inhabitants of those distant planets a chance to redeem their sins, and where does it leave people who believe they are the chosen of God? Where does it leave Jesus, and are there other versions of Jesus on other planets who died to redeem the sins of the world?

No doubt the leaders of the various Christian sects will come up with interpretations of the scripture that can include the inhabitants of exoplanets, without accepting apostate teachings from barbarian planets. The priority of most (not all) religions has been to expand their wealth and power, and has, over the span of history, taken precedence over care for others less fortunate than them, the justification being that the situation was the will of God that had to be accepted. The chances are that the religious elders will shrug and go on as usual, not accepting the beliefs of the new-found inhabitants of space – the ability to adapt and survive is enormous. What other non-religious organisations have so ably survived the centuries? A Carl Sagan commented, “Men may not be the dreams of the gods, but gods are the dreams of men”.

Epicureanism, like other variants of humanism, poses no religious dilemmas, addressed or ignored by believers. A good life, to Epicureans, means conducting yourself with kindness, respect and consideration towards others. It means getting pleasure out of life, with no threats of retribution or everlasting damnation. It stands for moderation, tranquillity (if you can get it), friendship and lack of fear. One doesn’t need a High Priest to advocate these ideas. If the exoplanetary people are intelligent, and even if they have only one eye and six arms, they will relate to Epicurean ideas. Can’t wait to discuss this with them!

Why did we leave the French to have such a good idea?

To The Times
Your report on “smart” motorways beaming advice to drivers reminded me that French motorways have had “smart” messages for some time. Driving north of Bordeaux, I noticed that all the traffic around me had suddenly slowed, so I looked up at the approaching gantry. Instead of the usual “bouchon 10km” it was showing my registration number with TROP VITE. I have never lifted my foot from the accelerator so quickly. I fully expect this new generation of “smart” signs to read: “Mr Lindsay, too fast. Fine £100 already charged to your debit card.”
Roger Lindsay, East Horsley, Surrey

Among libertarians any restraints upon their needs and desires are unacceptable. I disagree. In an ordered world civilised people restrain their impulses (in this case) to speed and recklessly weave in and out of the traffic. I live in a city where the driving is becoming a scary threat to life, with people running red lights with not a thought in the world, and where, if you don’t catch the eye of a driver as you attempt to cross the street at a proper crossing, you risk your life, as some crazy driver tries to dodge in front of you with six inches to spare. It recently happened twice in a single morning alone. People are still being jailed for possession of marijuana in the United States. Could we not swap them for selfish drivers? At the very least stop them texting-while-driving – but that requires policemen patrolling on foot, apparently an old fashioned idea.

The British Exceptionalism Delusion

Sorry for the longest post in awhile. I don’t know when I’ll next be able to post again, so I thought I would give this one a good shot. 

Last year I wrote on American Exceptionalism, and why I believe it is wrong. While America has accomplished an exceptional amount, it is not inherently exceptional; being run by flawed human beings, it is just as prone to crisis as everywhere else. You can read the full article here, http://epicurus.today/epicurus-and-american-exceptionalism/.

America isn’t the only country that has a prominent exceptionalism myth. Britain does too, even if it isn’t often explicitly acknowledged. The British Empire, and the memory of it, has given the British the idea that our country is special. After all, if a small island with few natural resources can conquer a quarter of the world, it must be unique. More recently, Britain’s victories in both world wars lends to the idea that we are on the right side of history. Britain hasn’t suffered a full scale land invasion since 1066. This has given the nation a degree of overconfidence. We often assume that we are the best at everything, and we will accomplish anything we set out to do.

The popularity of exceptionalism has ebbed and flowed since the demise of the Empire. It reached a peak in WW2, where Britain faced a Nazi-occupied Europe and the formidable Wehrmacht. Following the war, it reached a low during the Suez Crisis, where we were humiliated by Nasser and the Egyptians. Exceptionalism peaked again following Britain’s victory in the Falklands War. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, Britain (and America) bought into the ‘end of history’ myth, that ours was the greatest civilisation ever known, and with the fall of Communism, had no serious contenders. Then exceptionalism largely disappeared in the late 2000s, with the failures of the Iraq War becoming apparent, and the 2008 financial crash dealing a severe blow to Western capitalism’s defenders.

In early 2016, I believed that British exceptionalism was a thing of the past. There was no mood for foreign adventurism, even as Assad was committing horrible atrocities in Syria, and ISIS’s clout rapidly grew. Despite Britain’s relatively low unemployment and low inflation, wage stagnation and the effects of six years of government spending cuts (relative to GDP) had dampened popular confidence in Britain’s economy. The recession had exposed the country’s post-industrial economic weakness, with the former manufacturing towns and coal mining areas being hit hardest by both private and public sector contractions.

But Britain’s vote to leave the European Union in June 2016 has given the exceptionalism myth a new lease of life. Partly because the Leave campaign appropriated nationalistic rhetoric to enthuse voters of their cause. The idea of plucky Britain going it alone in the world resonated, particularly with elderly voters frustrated with the country’s relative decline. Free from adhering to foreign dictums and paying into the EU’s budget, the country would be free to set its own rules and finance British institutions properly, especially the NHS. For fiscally conservative voters, Brexit was a chance to break with the European social democratic model and complete the Thatcherite experiment; loosening regulations would give Britain the edge in negotiating its own free trade deals with countries like America and China.

Now it’s worth noting that British exceptionalism does not enjoy majority support, even if its salience has increased post-referendum. Many Leave voters remain cynical about politics, believing that the country’s future is glum, even if Brexit was the right thing to do. Some are critical of politics and politicians generally. Virtually no Remain voters regret their choice, and are critical of the government’s hubris and overconfidence in the Brexit negotiations. A large proportion of young people regard Brexit as the preserve of the elderly, who voted to restore a country that never existed and/or can’t be brought back. That isn’t entirely true, but it remains a popular perception regardless.

Nevertheless, there is an astonishing trend for many government ministers and some Leave voters to believe that nothing can go wrong. For the more extreme Brexiteers, Britain will be better off regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. We will have just as good access to the EU’s markets after Brexit as we do now, even if we crash out of the Single Market. We can enjoy the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU while being outside the customs union. We can reduce immigration without making the already severe labour shortages in heath and social care worse. Britain can negotiate far more comprehensive free trade deals with the rest of the world far quicker than the EU, despite not having the heft of 27 other economies and an experienced and well-funded civil service. And ‘taking back control’ can be accomplished while maintaining an open border with the EU, a la Ireland.

Of course, all of that is utterly delusional, much of it obviously so. Any neutral observer has to only look at Britain’s relatively poor GDP growth and high inflation to realise the country is in no position to be cavalier. As the larger body, the EU holds the upper hand in the negotiations. Of course, disaster hasn’t struck, but the main threat is long-term demise, not any sudden crash. The EU has repeatedly made it plain it won’t offer the ‘bespoke’ deal our government wants. Most importantly, the ‘economic competitiveness’ the Eurosceptic Tory Right believes is necessary for a successful post-Brexit Britain does not enjoy majority support, both in Parliament and amongst the public. Many of the Leave elite believe Britain must be much more free market orientated to take advantage of Brexit. They accept that leaving the EU while adhering to EU-equivalent regulations and social welfare provision is futile. But after eight years of cuts, hostility to further economic liberalisation is great, so it won’t happen.

As a Brit, I want the country to have a bright future regardless of the choices of its politicians or its people. But at the moment, I simply can’t buy into any notions of British exceptionalism. Like it or not, the more Britain differs from the EU, the less we will be able to trade with them. I don’t believe our ability to negotiate our own trade deals is high, certainly no higher than the EU’s. The EU will offer us a deal that makes us worse off. And Britain will accept it, because the government has realised the consequences of ‘no deal’ means Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister. British exceptionalism has done us a disservice in the past. There is every chance it will fail us yet again.

The opinion of an educated evangelical

I am British. Some while ago I visited the American South Western states, including Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona, and was amazed at the lack of general knowledge among the people we met and with whom we had lovely conversations .

May I suggest that the basic reason for the USA evangelicals’ take on life is a function of ignorance rather than based on theology or personal experience of belief. From ignorance is born superstition and fear. In England evangelical Christians differentiate themselves from the rules and rituals of orthodox formal religion per se. That is why I call myself and evangelical because I do not feel comfortable with rules and rituals and formal religion.

An educated evangelical knows perfectly well that homosexuality has a basis in biology and therefore no one is to blame. They also know that if a girl has been raped then the kindest thing of all is to abort the baby, if that is what the mother wants. The raped girl comes first, in spite of the fact that any abortion is also a tragedy. Some may not agree with this but I believe that kindness and compassion comes first.

Thus, another opinion from another evangelical Christian, who gets a little exasperated by some closed minded, pious, and non-thinking fellow Christians.
(Anonymous)