Category Archives: Ethics

The Rich Are Obligated

Posted on by under Ethics

Are rich people morally obligated to give part of their wealth to the poor? Financially speaking, 90% of the American population, the part you and I are in, share one-third of the nations personal assets.  Nine percent share a third and the top one percent of the population share a third. One out of three people are uninsured and we are experiencing double digit unemployment while….the rich are getting richer. In fact in the last year only 12 percent of the billionaires have seen a small decline in their fortunes and others have enjoyed large increases in theirs. The combined assets of 385 billionaires equals the combined assets of 2.5 billion people on the bottom of the financial spectrum. In the workplace the pay gap between the CEO and the majority of the workers has risen from 37 times greater in 1965 to 475 times greater in 2008. So if you are making $20.00 per hour the CEO is making $9500.00 in the same hour.

While writing this intro a question occurred to me ‘does anyone believe these people earn (deserve) this money?’ I have read several commentaries in which people make the comment ‘they earned it’. Come on, who earns almost $10,000.00 per hour? Because they were able to wrangle into these positions–they earned it?

Are rich people morally obligated to give part of their wealth to the poor? The contention developed from trying to answer this question is between those who think whatever a person acquires is theirs and those who believe we should all benefit from being part of the human community. As for me I say ‘those able are morally obligated to give to the poor.’ I would prefer that there wasn’t such an income disparity and I would have suggestions for that but, while stuck with the system we have I will stick to my position: The rich are obligated to the poor.

People don’t usually get rich in a vacuum. In a modern society such as ours a person may get rich legally or illegally, morally or immorally, eventually it won’t matter. They’ll be rich!

The laws and the morals of a society, right or wrong, are the production of that population and its predecessors. And it’s within the purview of the legalities and ethics of any community in which a person gets rich. Therefore; it seems any person who gets rich as the result of affiliation within a human community owes something back to the community that made it possible for him or her get rich?

So what does morally obligated mean?  A simple answer ‘wanting to do something because it’s the right thing to do.’ The dictionary definition of moral is ‘conformity to the rules of ‘right conduct.’ But how can we know when we act according to the rules of right conduct? To answer this I will defer to Kant. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” What makes giving to the poor the right thing to do? As I stated in the introduction, because we are part of a community we have obligations to the community.  And in this case this obligation extends specifically to those who are able to do something about the generally poor condition of life for those in or near poverty.

In defense of my proposition that there is an obligation I will refer to Rousseau and his concept of ‘Social Contract.’ “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate , and in which each, while uniting himself with all , may still obey himself along, and remain as free a s before….Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

From these statements I conclude we’re all obligated to the individuals in our community.

According to Rousseau we are born under a social contract; we have the right to expect something from society and society has the right to expect something from us. Rich people need the population’s support, whatever they are doing to obtain or maintain their wealth.

To further support the notion the rich should feel a moral obligation to the poor I think an order of magnitude leap is required. Not so long ago the people in this country enslaved other people and forced them to do their work for them. Many people became rich and powerful as a result of the blatant exploitation of humans. Consequently the economy thrived, the country prospered and they shipped their products to Europe. The slave owners extracted from the slaves what they wanted and the customers in Europe got what they wanted. (Sound familiar) Did anyone owe anything to the slaves? The slaves were a component in a system in which people benefited from their presence as the capitalists benefit from the poor class today. We can tell ourselves out loud this behavior disappeared with our ancestors, but it didn’t. It’s just less blatant now.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen,1943.

Neither the capitalist’s right to profits nor the laborer’s right to organization are absolute and unlimited; they are both subject to the common good of all. Both the right to profits and the right to organization are means, and as means they are to be judged by the way they promote the true ends of life. These rights therefore can be suspended for the common good of all.

I added this quote because this ideal gets lost in capitalism—in fact it’s trained out of us. In fact I suggest capitalism would be in trouble if not for the never ending supply of slave type labor. Most of the things purchased at Walmart’s 7000 stores are made in other countries by people who can’t afford to buy them. The prices are set by Walmart and the suppliers comply even when below profitability. But, because other people are forced to live this way, we in this country have more. And we get to have the illusion we are doing okay. At least two of Walmart’s owners are in the top 10 richest people in the world. They didn’t start Walmart and they force their suppliers below a reasonable living standard as they do their employees. Are they morally obligated to help the poor and the poor working class they help create?

In his 1883 essay the 19th century polymath, Yale professor, William Sumner is the epitome of the opposition. Quoting from an internet article,

Some of his ideas about the economic survival of the fittest and opposition to government intervention in the economy were applications of Darwin’s scientific ideas of evolution to the social sphere. He also drew upon the doctrines of laissez-faire….to argue that government intervention would disturb the “natural” and self-regulating market. Sumner’s writings justified government inaction in the face of vast social dislocations caused by rapid industrialization and the periodic economic depressions that accompanied it.

When people take the position of the survival of the financial fittest I think they confuse how things happen at the most basic level of life with how they should happen at the most complex. ‘Survival of the fittest’ denotes a struggle to succeed. This is a completely inaccurate depiction. But this distorted analogy might suffice if we lived in total anarchy and everyone was literally fighting for their own survival; but we are by choice, and by default, part of a community. The ‘survival of the fittest’ mantra is not applicable to the concept of a community working together for the betterment of its individuals.

The word natural is also injected where it doesn’t belong. How can we say what a natural market is? A natural market in reference to how humans should interact with each other cannot be defined by looking at how wild animals fight over food. And the term ‘self-regulating market’ is used as if to imply ‘fair market.’ I also think it is interesting that the people complaining about government intervention are usually complaining when it negatively impacts their ability to accumulate money. Even Sam Walton started out working for someone else. When he bought a franchise people came to his store—so he expanded. Bill Gates was fortunate that IBM wanted an operating system and that the first company they asked dropped the ball. Did these two benefit from being part of a community? Could they have succeeded without their respective communities? Do they owe something? There is little doubt….in advanced societies there is obligation. Personally I think our confusion about our moral obligation contributes to cognitive dissonance and therefore, depression in our culture.

In conclusion, there are innumerable reasons some succeed financially and some hit the bottom. According to Michael Sandel (Professor of Government at Harvard) those who succeed may do so for reasons they aren’t able to take credit for. When someone succeeds they get to enjoy the bounty. But they also seem to incur the adulation of a significant portion of the population. Perhaps it is reasonable for the same population to give credit to those who failed to succeed financially but perhaps would have, given similar circumstances. The founders of this country fought for the ideal we are all equal and deserve the right of the pursuit of happiness. But still—not everyone gets that right!

 

 

Moral Food Choice

Posted on by under Environment, Ethics, Health

We have some responsibility for the condition of the future our families and friends will be living in. And regarding our responsibilities on any particular issue, we may choose . . . or not choose. But both lead to real consequences in the real world. Therefore, we will do well to choose . . . and choose wisely! From the destruction of our environment to the suffering and death of those we care about, wrong choices sometimes have terrible consequences. Morbidity and mortality statistics are usually insightful when defending such claims—so here’s a couple. Over the course of the 20th century the statistics on cancer in humans has increased from about 5% to about 33%—and this alarming fact is projected to continue worsening. There are multiple reasons for such statistics, and one of them includes our food supply. This is what I am going to try to focus on here. By the way it is heartbreaking as well for pet owners; some experts report that 60% of our pets are getting cancer now.

Most of us aren’t aware of the extent of damage caused by wrong food choices, but it’s serious—and we need to talk about it. The really bad news is that it appears our wrong choices will be even more detrimental to our children’s future. But on a more positive note—the good news is that if we make the right decisions in time we can make positive contributions to the future for our children and grandchildren. And we are surely obligated to do this because it was our choices that brought them here.

The big question going in to this essay is:

                                 Are we making moral food choices?

To properly answer this question we have to consider how we answer our important questions. If our answers lead to flourishing of life for the inhabitants of the planet then the choices are surely moral. From that point we need only follow the dictates of morality; then we will be doing all we can for our children and grandchildren. For some people this may seem too tough, but my intuition informs me that most parents want to do what they can for their children—no matter what it takes.

For many of us it’s common, even comforting, to recall the images given us in stories of small farms with vast grassland for animals to graze. A few jingles about strong bones and muscles strategically placed by the appropriate industries—and we feel assured that this is normal, healthful and ethical. But it’s not! Some of our sciences give us important insights into how to best produce and consume our food. We learn more about what nourishes us best, what is causing morbidity and which processes are most destructive. Some of the common issues regarding our food production and consumption include: pollution to our air, water and land; even to our bodies. Also included; the detrimental effects of chemicals to our health and to the environment and now we are even concerned about what the industry takes from the animals exploited by it.

Within the familiar culture of the US most of us get used to buying our dinner wrapped in cellophane, ready for the barbecue. We don’t need to know much about what happens or what the damage is before the animals end up on the meat department display counter. And until the last few decades little was known about the damage done after we take those faceless, cellophane packages home. For most of us a ‘reasonable’ price is all the information needed, but this isn’t enough. We know too much now, we know it’s costing us—and the cost is too great! The incidence of vascular disease and cancer take a huge toll on life and the waste generated in the industry is destructive to everything that matters.

Animals have been farmed for human consumption for a long time. But the 20th century ushered significant changes in animal farming. New technologies allowed high density farming while economies demanded it. This high tech, high volume farming has commonly been referred to as factory farming, but in more sophisticated circles CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feed Operation) may be preferred. This mode of farming improves efficiency, lowering the cost of bringing animal products to the grocery shelves while, on the other side of the coin, exacerbating inherent problems in the animal production industry.

The food animal business (meat, dairy and egg) provides products highly demanded by the majority of the population. It also supplies jobs for a significant segment of society and financial gratification for those in the position to benefit. This industry has grown as a result of demand and the ability to supply that demand with modern tools and technologies. Along with the growth of the animal production industry is a growth in concern for the impact this industry has on the environment and ultimately . . . our lives.

As it is with many industries; the true cost of animal products is not revealed in the sticker price. The deferred costs (externalities), not paid at the time of purchase, will be paid eventually. These costs include: destruction of the environment, acute and chronic diseases and early death. We pay for the shortsighted choices of our predecessors and our children and grandchildren will continue the tradition by paying for ours.

There are movements trying to mitigate the negatives of the animal industry on the environment, but the effects of these movements are small in comparison to the combined pressures of the industries bearing down on our planet today. As well intentioned as these efforts are, they may slow the problem but will not solve it. Animal production and consumption is nothing new, but with crowding and technology, we now live in a different reality. The message to take away from this:

        We cannot continue to do what our ancestors did and get away with it.

Exploitation of animals by humans is as American as apple pie, but this particular pie is bad for the planet—it’s bad for everything. We unwittingly propagate the destructive, inherited tradition of animal consumption. Our economy, our way of life, is heavily dependent on the animal industry for food, jobs, research, medicine and entertainment. Our children are injected with substances derived from animals from infancy. Baby’s first foods contain animal products. Kids are taught to be kind to animals and told to eat all the animal flesh on their plate and to drink all their milk. Students learn they need animal protein daily as it shows up significantly in the food pyramid. School cafeterias are required to offer milk. At restaurants most entrees contain animal products and ads from grocery stores mostly promote animal products. Clothing, furniture, cosmetics, medicine and many other things we take for granted are byproducts of the animal production industry.

Unfortunately, in large part because of the predominately animal protein rich diet we inherit, a significant portion of our population will succumb to the two major killers—cancer and vascular disease. There are myriad causes of cancer, but it is now understood that diet is one of them. The use of animal products is prolific and ubiquitous; eroding our environment, our health and ultimately . . . our happiness. In the quest to appease humanity’s insatiable appetite we’re destroying the planet. Until enough of the population realizes the egregious error in one of our most familiar and cherished customs, eating animals and using them as means to our ends, humanity will not be able to evolve to its moral and intellectual capacity. And until then, we may not be able to think our way out of harm’s way.

Agriculture is fairly equally divided between animal and produce production. Employing approximately three million people; agriculture contributes 1.9% to the GDP. Throughout written history, and beyond, people have been eating and using animals. The U.S. population of vegetarians is around 4.2% and vegans add another 0.2%. So it’s easy to see—the huge majority of our population contributes to the problems of producing animals for human consumption.

Eating animals does offer at least one real advantage. You can find something, kill it and eat it. We have been taught a diet absent animal products is inferior. “Single plant protein foods usually are lower in protein quality than most animal proteins because they lack significant amounts of various essential amino acids (Tufts University Medical School). But some disagree. Unfortunately, animal consumption offers real disadvantages too—the destruction of our health and our environment.

The animal industry does everything to make eating animals a part of our belief system. We grew up on slogans like “Everybody needs milk” and “Milk does a body good.” But because of advances in knowledge we now know animal products are not the panacea once believed. We know producing animal products is detrimental to our environment, us and our children. The CDC has identified a number of pollutants associated with the discharge of animal waste into rivers and lakes, and into the air. The use of antibiotics may create antibiotic-resistant pathogens: parasites, bacteria, and viruses may be spread.

The misconception, upheld by the animal industry and supported by the diet and medical industries, that animal protein is superior to plant protein, has certainly been a strong argument for the production and consumption of animals. Fortunately scientists are giving us different information now. Dr. McDougall brings us up to date in ‘Where Do You Get Your Protein.’ “Since plants are made up of structurally sound cells with enzymes and hormones, they are by nature rich sources of proteins. In fact, so rich are plants that they can meet the protein needs of the earth’s largest animals: elephants, hippopotami, giraffes, and cows. You would be correct to deduce that the protein needs of relatively small humans can easily be met by plants.”

At one time the common knowledge was animals were automatons; without feeling, without soul, without virtue; other than a living resource for human exploitation. From this we learn—animals have no rights! “A poll of Oxford students found that 85% supported animal testing and 65% thought the launch of Pro-Test a good idea.”

In the 1920’s the use of vitamins allowed farmers to raise poultry indoors and in higher densities. By the ’50’s the use of antibiotics and vaccines extended high density farming; sickness in animals could be delayed long enough to turn them into food. For poultry this may typically be 45 days, and pigs 6 months. The industry has grown to produce and kill 10 billion animals per year in the U.S. The animal production industry is huge, and destructive. “According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are currently 450,000 Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) in the United States. AFOs contain animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations in one combined land space. According to EPA, AFOs create more than 500 million tons of waste every year.”  This dangerous waste exceeds that of the human population and there have been no processing plants for it.

Another line of justification for the CAFO’s is these facilities have succeeded in bringing the cost of animal flesh down to being affordable by the poor—though this may have mostly to do with the increased efficiency from forcing so many more animals into the same amount of area. Along this line, the mantra of the educated is commonly to support the science of GMO’s as their educators have convinced them this technology is to produce more food to feed the world. The opponent of this mind set says we have enough food now; we just can’t efficiently distribute it where it’s needed. “World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720(kcal) per person per day.” (WorldHunger.org   2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics)

 Further justification for the factory farms includes economics. People are employed in the farming of animals, the production of crops to feed them, the production of medicines (more than half the antibiotics are used on animals in this country), the slaughtering, the storage, transportation and the wholesaling and retailing of the end products. But it’s inefficient and wasteful to cultivate animal flesh for human consumption. It requires about 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of flesh and the amount of water required to maintain this industry is staggering, and we face water shortages. This industry contributes significantly to deforestation, with deforestation contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. It is reported that deforestation, predominately for agriculture, occurs at a rate between 4,000 and 6,000 acres per hour. The facts tell us something in this regard: The production of animals degrades everything.

Some contend that the people working in this industry, especially in the slaughter process, are negatively impacted mentally and physically by association. But the stress from this industry affects everyone, suppliers as well as consumers and non consumers alike—in much the same way slavery adversely affected the slave trader, slave owner and the slave;  even those not participating in that culture. It’s a low paying industry and attracts a lot of desperate people, particularly the newly immigrated, and it’s dangerous! Here we have not even scratched the surface on the subject of epidemic and pandemic threats such as avian flu, swine flu and other pathogens known to migrate the once perceived, now non-existent, species barrier. There are many dozens of diseases attributed to human contact with animals. Suffice it to say, another unnecessary side effect of the human predilection for animal consumption. According to CDC, Farms on which animals are intensively reared can cause adverse health reactions in farm workers. Workers may develop acute and chronic lung disease, musculoskeletal injuries, and may catch infections that transmit from animals to human-beings.’There are over 150 pathogens in manure that could impact human health. Many of these pathogens are concerning because they can cause severe diarrhea. Healthy people who are exposed to pathogens can generally recover quickly, but those who have weakened immune systems are at increased risk for severe illness or death.’ http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/Docs/Understanding_CAFOs_NALBOH.pdf

Some of the larger countries are coming up to speed now. They will be able to far surpass the damage the U.S. has done to the environment and its inhabitants in a much shorter time. The China Feed Industry Association boasts a $50 billion a year animal feed industry which is predicted to surpass the U.S. this year. And they claim they are well positioned for expansion. In light of the problems in the world now, this should be a huge concern.

The notion that animals are here for us to use is supported by government, education, religion, retailing and of course—tradition and superstition. Our culture engages in the exploitation of animals for anything from science to pleasure and any use you can imagine in between. Advocates of the status-quo will tell you there is only a little cruelty and suffering in factory farms. To further this philosophy it is stated animals have always been confined, used, abused, beaten and eaten—it’s what they are here for. This was the same argument used by many to defend slavery.

Even though there are moral issues throughout this industry, to improve this situation the environmental argument may be best, but only in that as the environment continues to decline it will reach a point at which we will be forced to acknowledge our peril. It is the nature of our species to eventually reply, when pushed down far enough—usually near the bottom. When it becomes intolerable there will be a response from the masses—we can only hope it won’t be too late! Much like the global warming threat, nefariously called ‘hyperbole’ by many, we finally had to acknowledge that there really is something going on. Actually the animal industry is a major contributor to global warming. I have read that in California’s central valley the major pollutants in the air, contributing to the greenhouse problem and to breathing problems, come from animal wastes.

‘Aside from the possibility of lowering air quality in the areas around them, CAFOs also emit greenhouse gases, and therefore contribute to climate change. Globally, livestock operations are responsible for approximately 18% of greenhouse gas production and over 7% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (Massey & Ulmer, 2008). While carbon dioxide is often considered the primary greenhouse gas of concern, manure emits methane and nitrous oxide which are 23 and 300 times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, respectively. The EPA attributes manure management as the fourth leading source of nitrous oxide emissions and the fifth leading source of methane emissions (EPA, 2009)’ http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/Docs/Understanding_CAFOs_NALBOH.pdf.

If we accept the evidence provided as true and important then the logical and virtuous step any human should take is to stop participating in the animal production process—if there is no demand there will be no supply. Based on the facts, it seems this industry is bad for everything it touches; except the bank accounts of those running the show. The animal industry, a prominent feature of our culture, contributes to our biggest problems. One of our most revered traditions may be one of our most damaging. To overcome such insidious habits, which destroy our home and our health, will most likely require a major cultural shift. Probably the best course of action is education. It will have to be education for the young though; those who have already inherited their culture and beliefs usually cannot change, not even in the face of contrary evidence. Just an ancient human characteristic that for the modern human—is a flaw!

 

 

 

Free-will

Posted on by under Ethics

Do we have free will? For over a half century, I never questioned—and no one ever asked. I’m sure I didn’t doubt I had free will. But it would be hard to avoid thinking this way being brought up in an average American household. But if we do have free will—how free are we?

The two most relevant positions on this question, at least in my opinion, are hard-determinism and compatibilism. The hard determinist simply concludes that because of cause and effect we have no choice, we just do what follows—no free will. The compatibilist agrees with the cause and effect theory but protects our ability to choose as much as possible in that the compatibilist thinks cause and effect and choice are compatible—free will.

While reading about one of the more contemporary philosophers, Stace, I thought I had found someone who explained compatibilism in clear, concise everyday language. Stace takes the compatibilist position because it gives him some latitude as he thinks this is necessary to protect the concept of free will. What makes the notion of free will so important and so important to understand? Probably most importantly; free will and our understanding of it, dictates our understanding of morality and our responsibility to it. One of the obvious institutions to be directly affected by our stance on moral responsibility is the justice system.

Not enough free will and we are not responsible for our behaviors—too much free will and we are responsible for every behavior we may exhibit. I agree; it’s an ideal worth protecting. But, only the correct understanding of free-will allows the conditions in which to form the proper moral and legal paradigms for the improvement of humankind. I am inclined to agree with Stace at this point; in that I think we would be in big trouble if we had to abandon morality and responsibility for our actions in favor of hard-determinism.

In defense of his position, Stace points out that the hard-determinist, those who deny free will, live their lives, outside of their lecture rooms and studies, as though they have free will. He says, “They will ask their children why they didn’t tell the truth, and then punish them as if they had a choice in the matter”. No doubt, this contradicts determinism.

But the conclusion of a determinist doesn’t necessarily lose all credibility at this point. The determinist thinks all choices are derived from previous events, and these events, the causes and effects, predicate our choices—therefore we are not free. Where Stace diverges from the determinist is on choice. This compatibilist agrees there is a causal link between events and choices, but thinks we are free to choose as long as we are not inhibited by any external force. Specifically, as long as we are not coerced by outside forces we are free to choose according to our desires and motivations. Therein, we are free. In fact Stace separates free acts from unfree acts this way. Free acts proceed from making choices which, although proceeding from previous events; the choices are based on one’s own desires and motivations.

Here is where I have to part company with Stace. I don’t understand how he ignored what seems to be the more significant source of constraints plaguing our choices and behaviors—that of the internal constraints. Turns out there have been others who bring up this same, very important distinction. Surely there are physical factors which inhibit our choices, but the ones used to demonstrate external constraints; stranded in a desert, doing something because you are threatened, or leaving an area because you are dragged away, are not the forces which normally interfere with our freedom.

At the top of the list of disabling factors when it comes to free will are things such as tradition and culture, religion and education. Then there is the fact of psychological and physiological abnormality. I think it is more relevant to ask if we are able to make a free choice, free from the over arching influence of these factors than to talk about external, physical limitations—at least in our culture for sure.

An example which illustrates the difference in internal and external constraints is of Socrates. At the end of his life Socrates was constrained—twice. When he was incarcerated his choices were limited by external forces and when his friends offered to sneak him out of the city his choice was limited by internal forces. In that Socrates was deeply convicted that the way he had led his life was the right way there was no other way for him to live—so he couldn’t leave. Turns out, he could have escaped the external constraints, but there was no way for him to escape the internal constraints.

The example of Gandhi is also important in the description of free will. Gandhi was not stranded in a desert; he chose not to eat. We could say he made a free choice—but did he? Could he have made another choice? If we believe the notion of cause and effect then we believe there was a series of events, causes and effects, leading up to the point in Gandhi’s life which culminated in the strong belief that he must do what he could to help the people of India. Whatever the forces were that caused Gandhi to be the person he was at this time in his life, they were sufficient to determine his unique choices and behaviors. His path in life had taken him to a point at which he believed that fasting would pressure the government to let go of India. This makes for an interesting question: Was Gandhi able to do anything other than fast now that events in his life created his personal reality—that fasting means helping India?

Perhaps for someone with the strong conviction regarding right and wrong of Socrates the idea of sneaking away may not enter his mind. If the same situation arose for someone with less conviction he may choose to escape. Could we say this person would be making a free choice because he chose to escape? Or would we have to say because of the causal events leading to this point in his life this would be the only decision he could make.

So…what is free when referring to free-will? It seems that intentions arise in our minds as they will. The ever busy brain is constantly responding to external and internal stimuli. We are aware of some of this and it is familiar to us as the process of thinking. But how do these thoughts, desires and intentions arise. In short it all starts with a biological event. A physical process occurs in the brain which we ultimately experience as a non-physical process of the mind. As Sam Harris says “our thoughts are unauthored, but are author to our actions”.

Certainly the types of desires and intentions which randomly arise in our minds are contingent on what life has created as reality for each of us. On one hand we may think, now that the desire has surfaced we are free to act on it as we choose. On the other, we have to wonder if our choices are as inextricably linked to the past events as the desire was that popped into our mind.

Are we free? I don’t know. I like to think I have some responsibility for how I behave. One thing we can know for sure—I think—is the sum of our experiences, mental processes and whatever control we get to bring to our lives is evident in our behaviors.

Social Institutions

Posted on by under Ethics, Human Nature, Social Obligation

 Do we legitimize harmful social institutions? It appears we do! And if we want humankind to improve, and plan to do anything about it, we must understand the forces which allow this. I contend there are harmful social institutions in our cultures and we unnecessarily legitimize them by enacting them; then teach our children to do the same. Since I have a strong innate aversion to harm, particularly to my family, it is my goal to identify harmful social institutions and consider some of the forces which may impinge on our capacity to do better than we have to dismantle them. Fact is, our predecessors cultivated, and we support and cultivate our irrational social institutions. Through the generations we have carried forward myth, superstition and plain old wrong answers from times when there were no better answers. I want to consider why we legitimize our faulty institutions and try to understand to what extent we are to blame for their continuing existence. By the conclusion of this commentary I hope to understand a little more about why we knowingly do harm to ourselves and our families.

For my purpose, a social institution and cultural institution means the same: “a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment.” ~Jonathan Turner.

We create our institutions and support them; in turn our institutions create and support us. This cycle can be, and is, a harmful cycle! Around the world there are many social institutions supported and passed along in many cultures, generation to generation. Although many of these institutions seem fairly benign, some are nothing less than hurtful; disfiguring, crippling, sometimes dehumanizing—and even lethal. In different places and different times it’s easy to be critical of the more blatant forms of harmful cultural practices: female genital mutilation, male circumcision rituals, honor killing, body scarring, foot binding, chipping children’s teeth, living in castes, etc. Ancient evidence of some of these practices is found in studies of mummies and cave paintings. The longevity of these cultural/social institutions attests to the tenacity and power they have over our lives—even when ineffably cruel. These institutions make sense to the people in the cultures which practice them because they were enculturated with them; enculturated beliefs don’t have to be rational. Those outside the culture are not, therefore, able to understand in the same way—perhaps, not at all.

At the same time, the populations in the developed world, which generally don’t participate in such blatantly harmful behaviors—any more, seem no less guilty of doing harm to themselves and their children than are those in Africa or Asia who perpetuate the more blatant, egregious social institutions. But to judge them this way will be perceived by some as ethnocentric.

So, how do we fare here in one of the more developed countries of the world? Well, we support, with the way we live, the notions of; class, racism, genderism, speciesism, conferred vocation and education status, importance of cultural identity and many other constructs which are demeaning, hurtful and counterproductive to a good life. These are examples of tacit culture, things we do but don’t necessarily understand or explain; contributing to our difficulties. The worrisome component is the lack of critical thinking with regard to the seemingly benign artifacts from days gone by, as this may therefore also be absent when it comes to overtly harmful practices.

Our everyday actions support a culture which has strongly stratified its society; providing opulent lifestyles for a very small minority, a life of daily toil for most and a miserable existence, or death, for way too many—not to mention the burden to the planet. But we are taught to believe this is the way it should be. From my point of view the socio-economic institutions responsible for this are flawed in many ways and do critical damage to our species and everything else on the planet. But—our society continues to participate as if we approve; generation after generation.

As we listen to those adversely affected by the poor economic conditions we should feel some empathy because it can happen to anyone at any time; any of us! But, conspicuously missing from all pleas for better economic conditions is a critical judgment of what’s going on. Yes, people get critical, but they get critical of the wrong things; the president or foreign countries or immigrants or the American corporations which are moving and leaving us high and dry. But I don’t hear any putting the blame where it belongs—on us! We are the ones, generation after generation, who perpetuate the thoughts and actions which cause the conditions we are complaining about.

The Free Market is one example. When asking, ‘would you prefer a Planned Market over what we have’ the typical response is ‘NO’. But consider what is being asked. Would a market being operated by intellect and need be better than one operated by desire and greed? That’s over simplified for sure, but sufficiently accurate for my point. We have been taught and we support the status quo—even when people are being evicted from their homes, sick, jobless and scared. In this country, outside philosophical circles, it’s taboo to talk about the benefits of a planned economy. Why? We are guilty, we support harmful social constructs, and then we teach our children to participate fully and to teach their children to do the same. Why don’t we want to engage in this conversation?

Another of our social constructs which surely must come under the heading of harmful is the typical American diet. We are taught to eat a particular way in the U.S, which is reinforced in the schools, grocery stores, the media, restaurants, hospitals, etc. The American diet is now recognized as a significant contributor to the health problems in this country—expanding into the world. Medical science has been telling us that over half the deaths from the leading killers; cardiovascular disease, cancer and stroke are related to improper diet.

“Seven out of ten deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases; with heart disease, cancer and stroke accounting for more than 50% of all deaths each year.” “Four modifiable health risk behaviors—lack of physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol consumption—are responsible for much of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases.” ~ Center for Disease Control website. It has been stated by the American Cancer Society that the overall costs for cancer related illnesses alone, is $104 billion a year in the U.S.

A National Research Council survey revealed that 90% of the poultry from federally-inspected plants were contaminated with salmonellosis. A 1987 study by the Federal Center for Disease Control, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, the salmonella thriving in the factory farms are increasingly resistant to antibiotics, they are also not all killed by most forms of cooking. The fact is, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, as much as 70% of the antibiotics in this country are used to fatten animals for slaughter, which is contributing to antibiotic resistance; and is putting all of us further into harm’s way. Should this be enough to cause us to change our ways?

The American diet is also responsible for severe damage to the environment, which is taking its toll on us—in fact on the world.  Huge amounts of wastes are dumped into our lives because of the production and consumption of animal products. This practice is extremely inefficient and contributes many pathogens to our lives. Sixteen pounds of grain are required to produce one pound of beef; the 16 pounds of grain will feed a lot more people than one pound of beef. Furthermore, the grain is less likely to be contaminated with pathogens and is easier to store. Plants are much more efficient food sources—without the enormous destruction caused bringing it to market. Ten billion land animals are raised and slaughtered in the U.S. yearly. This contributes millions of tons of pollution in terms of greenhouse gasses and solid wastes. Animals create 130 times more waste than humans; 15,000,000 pounds per minute, and we have no treatment process for it, so it ends up in our water, air and land. Over half our fresh water is used in the production of animals and with the threat of water shortages in the next 15 to 20 years, this is another very conspicuous warning we seem to be able to ignore—so far. Apparently this hasn’t changed us either!

Speaking for the interests of animals, science is finally getting on the same page with compassionate animal owners; now admitting animals are more like us than we were told just a few decades ago. They have nervous systems; feel pain, joy and fear and they recognize faces—even their own. And some researchers have shown that animal primates are just as offended by inequality as humans. But, animals are treated by most as if they have no right to be on the planet other than to serve us. This is the same attitude taken toward slavery by slavers. They were wrong about slavery! I wonder if someday people will look back at our time as a barbaric time in humankind’s history as well?

Not too long ago those of similar ilk as Descartes treated animals as if they were automatons; without feeling of any sort. If the animals cried out when they inflicted terrible injuries on them they claimed it was merely a mechanical response. Now researchers tell us about the human-like characteristics and behaviors of animals which lead toward the very obvious notion—they have the same types of drives and feelings causing their behaviors as we do.

Chickens form friendships and social hierarchies, recognize one another, develop a pecking order, and even have cultural knowledge that is passed between generations. According to researchers, cows enjoy mental challenges and feel excitement when they use their intellect to overcome an obstacle. Dr. Donald Broom, a professor at Cambridge University, says when cows figure out a solution to a problem, “The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment.” (Opposing Views.com)

The animal production industry is harmful to everything it touches—to our health, to the planet and to posterity—not to mention all the animals. Still, according to a survey by the Vegetarian Resource Group in 2008, vegetarianism is the lifestyle of only about three percent of the population. Even with all which is known about the deleterious effects of the typical American diet to us, to posterity, to the planet and to the animals; the same dietary lifestyle choice is passed along—generation after generation. Evidently this is still not enough to deter us from a harmful institution!

Most of us are routinely adversely affected by myriad forms of corruption, incompetence, greed and more—even to the point of destruction and death. This damage is attributable to the institutions we have developed, and worse—support. The emphasis on financial excess and competition, the incessant striving for status (of any kind) the bias toward beauty and intelligence, the tendency to discriminate and dominate, are some of the by-products of our social institutions which also encourage corruption, greed, violence, dishonesty and more. Yet we encourage our children to join the fray, pursue the dream, to play by the unspoken rules, thereby supporting the institutions which validate these negative traits and exploit our populations.

The American socio/economic paradigm elicits negative traits in our societies; yet the majority of our populations go through the motions everyday as if everything is as it should be. While we are critical of some of the negative aspects of our cultural institutions, usually only the ones which affect us personally (our bank accounts) as a group we support and teach our children to support the status quo. And if anyone criticizes society for all our problems, society will consider him, or her, a pessimist—at least.  So, it seems there is no doubt, we legitimize harmful institutions every day, in every way.

Is it true of us? Are we actually knowingly harming ourselves and our children because of our choices? Considering some of the evidence, the truth of this seems unavoidable; but it is typical for most people to resist this notion at first glance, but out of ignorance—as this is contrary to what we are taught. In the enculturation process we acquire a social identity and this identity is given to us based on what others think more than on what we think. It is a destructive social construct in that we then try to live our lives according to it, and in spite of it—instead of finding out who we are. We spend too much of our lives struggling with self image in a culture which perverts the sense of self and one’s identity in society. Some people are unnecessarily embarrassed and some overly proud of heritage, nationality, race, gender, education, vocation, neighborhood, possessions—right on down to the length of the fingernails for some people.

To understand how it is possible that we can, and do, participate in our own harm we must learn a little more about the effects of our nature, culture, beliefs and free-will. Do we really not understand what we are doing to ourselves and our families? It’s hard to imagine that we could understand—then continue down the same path. But it’s just as hard to imagine that with all the information available that we could not know.

How does our nature affect our judgment? Consider one of our innate traits; survival.

Because every brain activity serves a fundamental survival purpose, the only way to accurately understand any brain function is to examine its value as a tool for survival. Even the difficulty of successfully treating such behavioral disorders as obesity and addiction can only be understood by examining their relationship to survival. Any reduction in caloric intake or in the availability of a substance to which an individual is addicted is always perceived by the brain as a threat to survival. As a result the brain powerfully defends the overeating or the substance abuse, producing the familiar lying, sneaking, denying, rationalizing, and justifying commonly exhibited by individuals suffering from such disorders.”(Gregory Lester)

So the brain is hard wired for survival! Unfortunately this seems to cause some negative side effects for us, in our relatively modern world.

Consider some of the problems introduced by culture; culture being, the learned and shared knowledge that people use to generate behavior and interpret experience. Our culture defines us, as our culture is the pattern we are modeled after. Much of our cultural knowledge is tacit, subconsciously contracted; but once established, tacit or explicit—culture informs our thoughts and actions. So if we learn that eating animals at every meal is correct or that a capitalist economy is fair enough for our society or female genital mutilation is good for our sisters and daughters, this is what we will believe. Unfortunately, this is what we will do—and we will defend it. We live and make decisions based on these ideals—right or wrong!

What effect do beliefs have? How important are our beliefs in the decision making process? Well, people are willing to die for their beliefs. Our beliefs are at times so much a part of who we are we can’t let go of them even when confronted with contravening evidence.

Belief works like the blinders they put on a horse to keep it from spooking. Belief makes reality less spooky for us, which affords us a degree of emotional and psychological comfort. However, believing that things are a certain way has the unintended consequence of preventing us from seeing them as they might really be. The more emotionally addicted to a particular belief, the less able we are to consider anything else. Of course, we easily recognize such obsessive blind-spots in those whose beliefs are false. Remarkably, we are unable to see how this parallels our own true beliefs. Why? Emotional dependence is profoundly blind. Dependence has this same effect, whether it is an addiction to alcohol, love, food, drugs or beliefs. Indeed, beliefs may be the strongest of all addictions. (www.centertao.org)

The brain utilizes some form of a “framework” or “worldview” against which data is evaluated and collected. This worldview or “belief system” would consist of data drawn from experience that represents our subjective sense of the world around us. It doesn’t necessarily have to be factually correct, but it does need to be operational. In addition, the rejection of another’s data is not simply stubbornness, since the resistance to change would be an important element of human survival. Such resistance would ensure that data had to be overwhelmingly convincing before we would risk our survival knowledge on a new piece of information.(Adam Gerhard)

As part of our survival mechanism our beliefs are not going to change easily. “Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat.” (Skeptical Inquirer)

We must also consider free-will when trying to understand why we legitimize harmful social institutions. There are some who believe we have no free will and some who believe our free will cannot be limited. The arguments on this subject have been with humankind for thousands of years at least, and the answers still aren’t clear; but with the advances based in philosophy and science we must be getting closer to truth. One explanation for the origins of our thoughts and intentions, is “they just arrive” and “we won’t know what we intend until the intention pops into our mind” ~ Sam Harris.

The model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent’s final decision.(Daniel Dennett)

Considering the testimony of experts I conclude that we appear to have some control, but we may not be as free as we have been taught. “Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” ~ A. Schopenhauer. The evidence seems to be mounting for the idea that we have some control, but we are at the same time; our thoughts, intentions and choices, subject to laws of natural cause and effect and physical processes at the level of the brain which are not yet fully understood. So it seems we have some limitations!

From this one can ascertain that our physiology and psychology can destroy, at least dampen, the reasoning, logical processes of the mind. And certainly if our belief systems are as dominating as it seems they are, and our ability to make free choices is tempered by other factors, biological and cultural, then change may prove to be difficult, perhaps impossible for some—even when faced with the possibility of disaster. Even—when we know we are doing wrong!

Who’s to Blame?

This phenomenon of the human mind coupled with the haphazard evolution of cultures and their overriding effects on our decision processes, allows us to pass our harmful institutions and practices from generation to generation; perhaps not culpably aware of just how harmful some of our beliefs and behaviors are, but certainly not ignorant enough to avoid carrying some blame for our actions—or inactions.

At this time in human history; we know better than appearances let on, and we may be at the precipice. If the predictions for mid century are partially forthcoming I feel sorry for those who have to experience life in such worsened conditions; and I feel shame because we are partly to blame for the problems our children will face. It seems we have reached the time when we have to take responsibility for our choices and actions—the next generations are dependent on us. We have blamed the gods and our genes for our behaviors up to now, but this isn’t sufficient anymore. It’s time for us to take charge of our evolution!

 

Families At Risk

Posted on by under Ethics, Health, Veganism/Vegetarianism

I worry about our food supply; it’s another of the necessities of life brought to us by the for-profit industry. Humans have essential needs such as food, water, housing and medical care. When these are delivered through a system inherently and necessarily forced to seek the least expensive process to ensure the most profit, it’s likely there will be problems. One of these problems is contaminated food.

The last occurrence of contaminated spinach in Central California did not begin to identify the seriousness of the food contamination problem that exists in this country, nor the real cause. Based on information at www.cdc.gov it seems reasonable to conclude, food borne illness is a serious problem in the United States. According to this website food borne illness accounts for approximately 76,000,000 illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths per year. I don’t wish to minimize the awful tragedy which occurred because of the contamination of some spinach recently, I just want to bring out points I think should have been made.

The typical reports could have you believing no one should eat spinach again; that spinach is bad. In the various reports there were references to the possibility of the spinach market being devastated and there was speculation about whether it would fully recover in the near future. Some of the writers were careless enough to state ‘People had become ill from eating spinach’. The truth . . . the  illness was caused by the contamination on the spinach. One of the things which didn’t seem to get any attention, is anything can be contaminated in the same way as the spinach, and it happens all the time.

The majority of these reports missed the point. Yes, it’s good to know how the contaminate got there. But, the contamination occurred for the same reasons it has before, and I suspect it is likely to occur again for the same reasons. What is most important; is what will be done to prevent this from happening again.

Those at greatest risk are pregnant women, infants, children and elderly. People are dying year after year from contaminated food. Is this something we should be tolerating? We put our health and our lives at risk every time we eat. Does this seem reasonable? We are an intelligent species and we are perfectly capable of making the changes necessary to guarantee a much safer food supply.

But, it may not be reasonable to expect any such thing in the foreseeable future; as a source of this problem is very deeply embedded in our culture and the lives of most people. Most people enjoy the very products, and the way of life, which contribute to the contamination of our food. To talk about the causes of food contamination in this situation, requires talking about a huge industry in this state; in fact a huge business throughout the nation. It also requires talking about tradition, culture and myth.

 

 Specifically, I am referring to animal agriculture; the process of producing, distributing and using animal products and byproducts for human consumption and pleasure.

 

How can anyone suggest this huge, well supported, well paid industry share the blame for society’s most serious health problems? This article is not intended to be about all the negative aspects of the animal industry, and there are many, except to focus on one—the pollution of the environment by the animal industry as it pertains to contaminating the food supply. Should this be of concern to us? Should we care about the millions of people who get sick each year and the thousands who die? Are we concerned someone close to us may be next? The animal production industry contributes to the destruction and pollution of our land, air and water and contributes to the major diseases plaguing humans in the developed countries.

What happened? A contaminate got onto a vegetable crop, in this case, spinach. The contaminate was put there, not necessarily intentionally, but it was the result of human activity. It ended up in our food supply and people were hurt . . . and some people died.

What is this contaminate? It is a bacterium called E. coli. More specifically—E. coli O157:H7. Turns out there are many strains of E. coli and most of them are harmless; some even beneficial. But the strain of E. coli identified with the designation O157:H7 is dangerous. It produces a toxin, which causes the problems associated with the recent contaminated spinach.

Where does E. coli O157:H7 come from? Usually—cows; although it is also carried by chickens, pigs and deer. These bacteria live in the intestinal tract of animals and are spread many possible ways.

How does our food get contaminated with E. coli O157:H7? Fields may be fertilized with contaminated manure. The waterways may be and are contaminated by runoff from livestock operations, again contaminating the food supply. And people can be infected with this organism and spread it when handling produce. It is reported that ingesting 10 to 100 of the E. coli bacteria will infect a human, and one cow can dump billions of them into the environment, the land, water, air and our food on a daily basis. And it is not just E. coli O157:H7; there are many pathogens which are spread because of the animal industry. This is why you are instructed to handle animal flesh with such extreme caution. It is recommended you chlorinate any surface the flesh touches and cook the animal well. And, make sure you don’t cross contaminate any of your other foods or surfaces by letting them come in contact.

How does this organism affect humans? Once ingested the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria may cause symptoms of food borne illness in three to nine days. The bacteria produce a toxin that may cause severe diarrhea or even kidney damage, and is sometimes fatal.

Should this concern us? Absolutely! But, we are part of a culture which has and will risk a lot to fight for its right to consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes and eat products which are known to contribute to disease. At this time most people have accepted the fact that cigarettes and alcohol are dangerous and contribute to many deaths. Still,  some realize an incorrect diet or a polluted environment will contribute to ill health also. But for the majority of the population to seriously consider the idea that the production of animals is bad for us and is damaging to our food supply, among other things, is contrary to what most people have been taught. And is therefore contrary to what most are willing to believe, regardless.

Don’t we have free choice in this matter? The concept of producing animals to provide raw materials for anything we want; including food, entertainment, clothing, research, medicine, cosmetics, etc. is taught to us from infancy and has been for a long time. We learn it at home, at school and through every media that can be used on us. We don’t choose–it is taught to us–before we are able to choose anything; and it doesn’t stop here. For our entire lives we are constantly bombarded with the notion we must have animal products every day from all of those who prosper from the animal related industries. It even comes at us from the nutrition and medicine industries. It’s in our culture, it’s in our lives, it’s business and it’s thought by most to be okay. Consequently, by the time we are old enough to think for ourselves it is part of us. So do we have free choice?

How is this relevant to the contaminated food crop? It is relevant because it is wrong. It’s relevant because everything about it is damaging; and we accept it. It’s relevant because it is foisted on a culture that is almost powerless to do anything about it. And it is relevant to the solution because without a real look at what is happening, without real, individual decision making, without dramatic change it will not get better. People will continue to die unnecessarily. The statistics that tell us how many suffer and die because of food borne illness is just an unnecessary fact of life that we continue to see year after year. Just as we continue to see the same dreadful statistics on death from drunk drivers and coronary and cancer related deaths. Even though we know what accounts for the majority of these deaths and we know the remedies are easy and inexpensive, we continue down the same destructive path; the same path we teach our children to follow.

My research leads me to the conclusion that the animal production industry is to blame for much of the problems confronting the human and animal population of the planet. From food borne illness to cancer, from polluted water to polluted air, to antibiotic resistant bacteria and massive destruction of rainforests; the animal industry is a major factor. But this industry wouldn’t exist; it couldn’t exist if there was no demand for its products. So the blame must be shared by the very society which is sickened and killed by these products, because we want them, and would no doubt fight, if necessary, to have them. The very people that suffer and die and watch their loved ones suffer and die from diseases that are known to be related to this industry are the ones who support it and make it thrive.

Our society can continue to waste time and money looking for things to feed the cows to minimize the gas problem and can spend more money trying to figure out what to do with all the waste products. And surely many millions of dollars can be spent searching for ‘magic bullet’ vaccines to put on the market to inoculate everyone for each of the various bacteria one may encounter because of this industry. People can continue the endless research and expense of trying to figure out how to avoid contaminating the food supply, the water, the ground and the air. But this will not solve the problem anymore in the future than it has in the past. Or—we could eliminate the problem at its source.

If just one person was caught running their household sewage on to the ground it would be front-page news—we would deem that person disgusting and deserving of punishment. But dump the bodily waste of billions of animals on the ground, into streams and rivers as well as the air and ultimately onto our food and what happens. Nothing! Nobody seems too concerned, except for the poor souls who are downwind or are sick and diseased from it. And if anyone has convinced you animal waste on the ground isn’t as dangerous as human waste on the ground, you may want to reconsider that idea. Ask those who have contaminated wells or have homes which stink of animal waste because of neighboring feedlot operations. Ask those that have lived through or lost someone to an illness that was produced by the animal industry. Animal waste carries many pathogens which are dangerous as well as many chemicals the animals ingest daily as food and medicine, including antibiotics. It seems as though we remember our ancestors being so foolish as to allow their water to be contaminated by their own sewage. They suffered many diseases and deaths from this stupidity. I probably shouldn’t call it stupidity because I don’t think they knew better . . . we do!

I read a brief report stating the source of the bacterial contamination of the spinach had been determined and verified by matching DNA. It was reported to be cows in a particular area in the Central Valley. A week later I read an article stating it was ‘wild’ pigs, wild pigs broke down fences to get to the spinach crops and contaminated them. In my entire life I haven’t noticed fences around large vegetable crops. Why is the story changing? Does our attention need to be deflected from the real cause again?

There have been comments about the animal industry being more careful and some official sounding statements have been made about the State requiring more stringent guidelines, but I think this is a battle which cannot be won in this way. We need to stop doing the wrong things and stop looking for ways to do the wrong things better. According to Thomas Paine,

 A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong will give it a superficial appearance of being right.’

My appeal is to those who have pride in trying to make the right choices. To those who want to do what is right regardless of what everyone else is doing; regardless of what they have been taught. My appeal is to those who know ‘pride’ is not a concept to be associated with money, color, gender, nationality or looks. Pride belongs to those who earn it by doing more than is expected; by doing more than is easily done. Being born white or male, owning a Corvette, or living in the same town as the winning sports team are not things to be proud of. Making the right decisions, especially the difficult ones, even when it doesn’t conform to tradition in one’s culture or family—is something to be proud of. We are destroying our lives and our environment; we are destroying our children’s future. We need to make the right choices if we want any hope for their future and perhaps our own. And if you have children and grandchildren you probably want them to have a chance, you probably want them to have a future worth living in.

If you do any research to discover for yourself what is going on you will be amazed at the unbelievable levels of waste, pollution, damage and hurt that comes from this way of life. It has been amazing to me to learn what I have learned, knowing that earlier in my life none of this was reality to me, none of it mattered. The question I have is:

How is it hid from us so well?