53% of Leave voters are in favour of bringing back the death penalty, compared with 20% of Remainers. 42% of Brexiters back the return of corporal punishment in schools, as do just 14% of Remainers. Support for bringing back incandescent light bulbs, blue passports and pre-decimal currency is three times higher among Brexiters than among Remainers.
YouGov/The Independent
The fittest need not be selfish
To The Guardian:
Regarding Jonathan Steele’s review of “Insatiable” by Stuart Sim (7 April): Insatiable greed, the profit motive and competition are not the only aspects of human nature that conform to the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest”. “Fittest” in “On the Origin of Species” doesn’t mean most able to exploit those around them any more than “selfish genes” in the sense that Richard Dawkins used it means selfish behaviour.
“Fittest” means best adapted to survive. Adaption to survive a hostile environment is actually more likely to result in cooperation between members of the same species than is selfish individuality.
This matters because the selfish interpretation of “survival of the fittest” is used to justify behaviour that threatens to destroy our species. Collaboration is the only strategy that will ensure that our species can adapt in time to remain “fittest” to survive in an environment being degraded by selfish individualism”. Frank Cottingham, Leeds, UK (published in the Guardian, 21 April 2017)
Epicurus would agree. We are threatened by selfish people who put their own profit and careers ahead of the general good (I am thinking particularly of climate change), and thus putting the future of the human race and scores of animals amd wild creatures at risk of extinction. Whole political parties are predicated upon the idea of selfishness, the so-called Libertarians being the most egregious. Whether they are gerrymandering constituencies or engineering whole nations out of the EU, they have one thing in common: they have the benefit of not having to think about anyone but themselves. We need to put them back in their boxes. We have to either work together or be destroyed apart.
The patriots who despise Britain
Funny how the people who profess to love this country (Britain) the most always seem, deep down, to despise it, says Alex Massie. After the terrorist attack in Westminster, the reaction of most of us was to feel sympathy for the victims and to continue quietly to go about our business. But not Nigel Farage and “other members of the bulldogs-and-bullshit brigade”. Their first thought was to take to the airwaves to deplore our failure to prevent the latest horror to befall our benighted nation, a nation which has apparently been brought to its knees by fanatics and craven politicians. Yet this is not a picture most of us recognise. The latest surveys reveal a country at ease with itself, where the vast majority are pretty content. Some 89% of us say we live in a neighbourhood where people from different backgrounds get on well, up from 80% in 2003. The only ones who think we’re going to hell in a handcart are Islamist extremists and the hard-right. In their mutual contempt for Britain’s “instinctive liberalism”, and shared relish in each new terrorist outrage, they “need and feed off each other”. (Alex Massie, The Spectator)
Alex Massie is talking about the hyper-ambitious wreckers, the people who want to pull everything down and then re-erect it in autocratic style, with them as the autocrats. They don’t actually seem to know much and don’t want to know much. Anger is their thing. At some point in life they have been passed over and dissed by establishment figures, who looked down on them, and they have never gotten over it. As goes the UK, so goes the US. Bannon, for instance, grew up in Richmond, Virginia. My wife did, too. It was very conservative and what you might call “socially static” at the time (different now). Newcomers dealt with politely enough, but not encouraged. It is quite likely that his outsider status in Richmond still fuels his resentment. Trump may have inherited money, but the New York elite never accepted him in top circles; his alleged links to the mob and his penchant for not paying his suppliers saw to that. Huge chips on shoulders.
The benefits of compassion
In Chapter 7 of the Art of Happiness the Dalai Lama defines compassion as a “state of mind that is nonviolent, non-harming, and non-aggressive”. This feeling of compassion is broken down into two types. First is compassion associated with attachment. Using this type of compassion alone is biased and unstable, causing certain emotional attachments that are not necessarily good. The second type is genuine compassion that “is based on others’ fundamental rights rather than your own mental projection” . This type of compassion is also defined “as the feeling of unbearableness”. Accepting another’s suffering brings us a sense of connectedness and a willingness to reach out to others. Promoting the fundamental rights of others has the effect of generating love and compassion. According to the Dalai Lama the reason he separated compassion into two types was because “the feeling of genuine compassion is much stronger, much wider [and] has a profound quality”. Using genuine compassion creates a special connection that you cannot achieve with associating compassion with attachments (I suppose he means attachment to individuals for specific reasons? It isn’t totally clear. Ed.).
The Dalai Lama believes that compassion “provides the basis of human survival”. People reflect on their own experiences and this contributes to their understanding of compassion. If people feel there is no need to develop compassion then it’s because they are being blocked by “ignorance and shortsightedness”. This can be caused by not seeing the physical and emotional benefits of having a compassionate mindset. When one completely understands the importance of compassion, then it “gives you a feeling of conviction and determination”. Having this determination can bring one to have a compassionate mindset.
There have been numerous studies that support the idea that “developing compassion and altruism has a positive impact on our physical and emotional health”. James House found that “interacting with others in warm and compassionate ways, dramatically increased life expectancy, and probably overall vitality as well”. These studies have concluded that there is a direct correlation between compassion and physical and emotional health. (The Art of Happiness, Dalai Lama and Howard Cutlet. 1998, Riverhead ISBN 1-57322-111-2).
It seems the ideas of compassion, thoughtfulness, consideration for others, a desire to help the less fortunate – all these have been posited many times in history, usually by religious figures but also including Epicurus, who welcomed women, foreigners, and people of colour into his garden, included them and made them feel valued. In his time the upheavals and wars made compassion particularly important. Today we are faced with the same need as the world enters an era of upheaval and change, (by the look of it) for the worse. Compassion for the malnourished, the starving, the refugees and the displaced makes us all feel better about the world. It also has another, practical and hard-headed benefit. Compassion and practical aid helps refugees, for instance, stay in their homes, instead of migrating, with all the disfunction and social angst that causes.
The modern robber barons
Documents released by the White House under ethics rules have confirmed the staggering wealth of President Trump’s senior advisers and officials. The documents, recording the estimated assets of officials at the time they took office, show that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner have a property portfolio and business empire worth as much as $740m, and earned a total of $195m last year. Other wealthy officials include Kellyanne Conway (up to $42m), Steve Bannon (up to $48m) and economic adviser Gary Cohn ($250m). Sean Spicer, the president’s much-mocked press secretary, is also a millionaire several times over, recording assets worth up to $6.6m.
We have a lady who comes to clean the house. She came originally from Guatemala (and is here totally legally). She had no healthcare for her son, and we helped her get him enrolled in Medicaid. This week we learn that the Trump regime intends to slash spending on this scheme, which is designed for poor people and those not part of part of insurance schemes organised by their employers.
The blatant cruelty of this Administration will no doubt be rewarded by them being thrown out of power at the earliest opportunity. But in the meantime our cleaning lady has to live with uncertainty, fearful that her son will become ill. This is order to reduce Federal spending so that the rich Republicans can get a tax reduction. Epicurus taught us to seek peace of mind. This regime seems to be devoted to destroying it. How else can one interpret their actions?