Good news (for men)

Posted by on

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

Posted by on

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?

Posted by on

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

Posted by on

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

Posted by on

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)

New York under water

Posted by on

Climate change will bring good news and really bad news for New York City. The good news is that hurricanes might be more likely to miss the city over the next three centuries. This means the future risk of big storm surges, relative to local sea level, could be lower than today. However, the really bad news is that if we don’t slash greenhouse gas emissions, local sea level will rise by a huge 13 metres or more. With this factored in, New York could be facing storm surges at least 15 metres above the current sea level by 2300 (PNAS, doi.org/cfgw).

“Sea level rise itself is a very big hazard, before you start to look at tropical cyclones,” says Andra Garner of Rutgers University in New Jersey.Garner’s team used climate models to simulate the paths of future hurricanes and the storm surges they will produce. These were combined with estimates of sea level rise.They conclude that 2.3-metre floods, which happened in New York on average once in 500 years before 1800, struck roughly every 25 years from 1970 to 2005, will probably hit every five years by 2030 to 2045.If we don’t cut emissions, local sea level could permanently rise by 2.3 metres before the century ends.What’s more, meteorologist Jeff Masters of Weather Underground says the good news part could be wrong: at least one study shows climate change will make hurricanes more likely to hit the north-east US.
This article appeared in print under the headline “Future New York will be flooded”
(New Scientist)

It’s worth remembering that two-thirds of the world’s cities sit on coastlines. A rise in global sea levels of 11 feet would fully submerge cities like Mumbai and a large part of Bangladesh.

“Famous men can do whatever they want to women.” Donald Trump

Posted by on

When Trump made this boast in the now infamous video he was just revealing a sad truth. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, escaped prosecution, and went on to win an Academy Award “to a standing ovation”. Basketball star Kobe Bryant suffered only a brief hit to his reputation after he paid off a civil suit by a hotel employee who said he’d raped her. Bill Cosby, facing claims of sexual assaults spanning decades, dismissed his accusers as unstable women after his money. “The list goes on and on.” Recently, another basketball star, Derrick Rose, was embroiled in a civil suit for his alleged part in gang-raping an unconscious ex-girlfriend: the main concern of his team and fans seemed to be “how this will affect Rose’s play”. In our culture, charges of sexual assault against a male celebrity are viewed as “an inconvenient obstacle” to be overcome, “rather than the gravest of accusations”. Trump’s boast “is a reflection of who we are”. (Lovia Gyarkye, New Republic)

Leave me and my Epicurean friends out of that scenario, please! American culture has become wholly un-Epicurean, if you accept that it means respect for others, inclusivity, courtesy moderation and a wish to see society get on together in cooperative amity. There seems to be a massive deficit of orality and decency, something shared by all too many of the American religious community, especially those who support the current “government” (or grabitocracy). And now we learn that a senior member of the Russian government has been funnelling huge amounts of money to the NRA in order to further fire up the dangerous social divisions of the country. Justify that! Be my guest! How can one stand back and view the present situation with equanimity? Assault and rape are absolute no-no’s. So what can you say about complicity in unpatriotic treachery?

If I seem to have temporarily lost my ataraxiait is only owing to despair!

Thought for the day: it’s all about expectations

Posted by on

More than two-fifths of British state secondary school teachers rarely or never advise their brightest students to apply to Oxford or Cambridge universities. A quarter say they usually do, and a fifth always do. (The Sutton Trust/The Times).

My grandson is starting to think about universities. He tells me that, in his excellent (private) school, there is no mention from the teachers who deal with university entrance of Oxford or Cambridge as options, nor are there any teachers who encourage the kids to raise their sights. Maybe they fear failure, but sometimes you have to take risks.

The joys of music in schools

Posted by on

Music was one of my favourite subjects at school. It gave me an opportunity to express my more creative side. I would often spend my lunchtimes in the music computer rooms, working on my compositions. I was very blessed to have some excellent music teachers, a well-funded music department, a school culture where music was highly regarded, and a family that encouraged me to play and listen to a variety of music from a young age. Our school orchestra, senior choir and swing band were once the envy of the county. Against the predictions of both myself and my mum, I got an A for music aged 16.

But if The Economist is to be believed, fewer children will experience the joys of music at school if current trends continue. https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21737444-barely-one-20-pupils-took-music-gcse-last-year-how-much-longer-will-world-dance. Fewer students are taking music at GCSE and A level, the two qualifications Britons take at ages 16 and 18 respectively. Music departments are facing funding cuts, caused by a drop in demand and cuts to education generally. A relentless emphasis on science and vocational subjects has come at the expense of music, which is understandably seen as economically unproductive and not useful for most people’s careers.

Britain still excels at music at the elite level. Many of the world’s most famous musicians were and are British. Our music conservatoires are amongst the world’s best. The problem is that music is increasingly the exclusive preserve of the well off. Poorer students have to contend with underfunded music departments and the expectation from parents to pursue more lucrative pastimes. Success in the music industry often depends on luck or connections, not merit.

I think this is a national tragedy that must be reversed immediately. Music has all sorts of benefits for children, even those won’t don’t engage with it later in life. It helps them to express their emotions. It allows them to be creative and imaginative. It teaches them about history and other cultures, as well as their own. I couldn’t help but notice that people at my school who did music were better behaved, got better grades and enjoyed school more. Music is also wonderfully sociable, giving children a chance to meet different sorts of people. A more musical nation will certainly be a happier one.

 

Greed and bullying

Posted by on

Eight years ago, Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla spent $32.5 million on an 89-acre property with prime beachfront in San Mateo County. Khosla then proceeded to padlock the gate that leads to the beach. His goal: to keep the public off his sand. The only problem: California law guarantees public access to California beachfront. Khosla’s padlocking went to court. In 2014, a county judge ruled against him. Then a state appeals court ruled against him. This past October, the California Supreme Court declined to hear Khosla’s appeal to that ruling.

Last week, the Sun Microsystems billionaire asked the U.S. Supreme Court — in a 151-page petition — to bless his padlock. Khosla will clearly “do anything,” says California state senator Jerry Hill, to “deny other people their right to enjoy the coast in California. (Inequality.org)

Come back, Sans Culottes and the guillotine! How dare he?

When I briefly worked in San Francisco, back in the early 1960s, I remember walking along the beach in San Mateo, cold and foggy though it was. Being British it never occurred to me that people could own beaches down to the water-line. It’s unheard of in Western Europe, as far as I know. What is the waterline? The high tide line, the low tide line? Can walkers walk through the water itself without being shooed away? You can see that such silliness is a lawyer’s delight. Walking along a sandy beach looking out at the ocean for whales and seals is an Epicurean pleasure, and should be available to all.

Economic growth

Posted by on

“Only in economics is endless expansion seen as a virtue. In biology it is called cancer.”
(From David Pilling’s book “The Growth Delusion”).

Pilling’s core contention is that gross domestic product – the measurement upon which so much economic analysis is based – is an arbitrary, oversimplified construct that we “slavishly follow” for no good reason. Indeed, a good argument can be put forward for saying that capitalist “growth” and limitless expansion is going to end up skewering the human race and the planet it lives on. There is only so much junk plastic you can throw into the ocean, only so many wild creatures you can render extinct, only so many forests you can chop down. Catastrophe, caused by capitalism, may not undermine the lifestyles of those who read this posting while they are alive, but the eventual outcome looks pretty clear.

In the series “Cosmos” Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about the horrible fate of the planet Venus, which originally had an atmosphere somewhat like that of the Earth today. Over the centuries the oxygen in the air was replaced by carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely covered the planet. The atmosphere traps the small amount of energy from the sun that does reach the surface, along with the heat the planet itself releases. Venus is now toxic, with violent lightning, thunderstorms, and acidic land. No living creature could survive a day on it. To all global climate change deniers: Earth is going in that direction.
Do you really want to take the risk of it getting that bad?

Thought for the day

Posted by on

Congress is moving to take a second crack at opioid legislation, with lawmakers broadly agreeing that they need to do more to deal with a crisis that’s killing over 42,000(!) people per year.

Are they sure they are up postponing fundraising for long enough to do that?

Down syndrome

Posted by on

Lawmakers in Ohio fecently took steps to bar abortions when they are sought because a fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome, one of more than a dozen abortion restrictions passed in the state in recent years. If the bill is enacted, Ohio would become the latest state to try to stop women from aborting fetuses when they discover through prenatal testing that they have a chromosomal defect. Similar laws have been passed in North Dakota, Indiana and Louisiana, though the latter two have been blocked by the courts.

One observer commented: “If politicians were really concerned with Down syndrome, the things we’d be talking about are access to health care, independent living, opportunities for children when they graduate high school,” she said. “We’d be talking about companies that should be hiring children with Down syndrome.”

Alarm about abortion of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome spiked during the summer after a widely viewed CBS News report showed that women in Iceland had all but stopped giving birth to babies with Down syndrome, thanks to mandatory prenatal testing and liberal abortion laws.

What would have been the attitude of Epicurus? – a tricky question. On balance I suggest that the humanistic attitude that the welfare and happiness of the mother (and father, too) would have won out at the expense of the unborn child, whose future and cognition, awareness and possibly? happy life would be in doubt. I have no experience of Down Syndrome children, but understand that they are loving and responsive to the care and attention of parents. However, I still think that it is a life sentence for the parents, and, when they die, and if the child survives, a trial for the survivors who look after the child.

Guns again: The Swiss have good reasons to have them

Posted by on

A fatuous piece of propaganda has been doing the rounds in America. It’s an image of two young women cycling through a field with semi-automatic rifles on their backs, with the text: “Switzerland: 1 in 2 citizens has guns, lowest crime rate in the world”. The idea that this somehow discredits calls for US gun control is laughable. The high rate of gun ownership in Switzerland is owing to the fact that, with no standing army, virtually every male citizen is conscripted into the militia, but doesn‘t store state-issued weapons (without ammunition) at home.

This is nothing like the US, where “untrained yahoos” can “hang about Starbucks with loaded AR-15s”. Yet the militia link is still instructive. It brings to mind the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The founders included this on the assumption that the US, like Switzerland, wouldn’t have a standing army and would need militias to protect the state. But US gun nuts interpret it differently: for them, it confers a right to stock up on arms with which to protect themselves from the state. Which, when you look at it, is not the same thing at all (Heather Digby Parton, Salon).

Foreigners look at the American gun scene in horror and disbelief (see Owen Bell’s excellent comment on my posting yesterday). All I can say is that, truly, there are grown up, wise and sensible Americans of all ages who abhor the gun culture and think it totally inappropriate for the modern world. One person allowed a concealed weapon is enough to frighten a dozen other people into arming themselves. Thus does the NRA and its extemists make tons of money out of death or threats of death.

Guns should be locked away and the lock-up was inspected regularly by the police. The idea of walking around “legally” with concealed firearms is an appalling idea, dangerous to innocent passers by and useless in an emergency. Concealed firearms are simply extensions of a fragile manhood. Real men don’t need them.

This issue is not an issue of personal freedom or the Constitution; it defines whether one wishes to lives in a modern, civilised country or in a vast Hollywood version of Dry Gulch and trigger-happy cowboys.

The uselessness of armed guards at schools

Posted by on

Amid the aftermath of the Florida high school shooting, the usual suspects, anxious to safeguard the huge gun income, are pushing the idea of posting armed guards at schools.

This idea is naive and extremely dangerous, reflecting badly on the country as a whole. It would result in even more deaths. Let me tell you why.

Anyone with bad intent would know that he had to get past the armed guard if he were to murder innocent children within the school buildings. He would therefore use the ancient route to success: total surprise. However alert the guard he still doesn’t know from which direction an attack would come. Unless you had multiple guards, surprising one man would not be difficult. I know whereof I speak, because this happened to me while in the army. Innocently entering a room, supposedly full of people on my side, I was fired upon, the bullet passing through my hair and lodging itself in the doorframe. (This was an accident, not an assassination attempt!). I stood there shaking with shock and fright – and so would anyone else. (A similar thing happened to the terrified guard at the Florida school, I imagine. He is labeled a coward, but I at least understand, but not condone, his inaction).

If,like many Americans, I had been brought up on sherriffs, the wild West, stage coaches, robberies, ridiculously accurate gunfire, and Hollywood mythologies, I too would believe in sharpshooters gunning down a school attackers with a single shot. The messy truth is that gunfire around a school is very likely to injure or kill anyone in reach. Moreover, the whole point of total surprise is to kill or injure the guard, leaving the whole school open to mass murder. If you are suddenly attacked from an unexpected direction you simply do not wheel round and put a bullet through the forehead of an attacker. Most people would be shaking with utter fright and horror, unable to aim anything like accurately. The exponents of this whole idea are either naive, dishonest or lack the beginnings of an imagination.

And you cannot give arms to the teachers either. Their job is to look after the children, not to be sharp-shooters, or to endanger the children with a loaded gun in the classroom. Guns should be nowhere near schoolchildren. Mass murder weapons should be banned and restricted to their principle users – the military. I maintain that this is the Epicurean stance.