I am interested in learning about primary political positions that place an emphasis in political strategy on the children of a community. It seems to me that neither capitalism, communism/socialism nor anarchy/libertarianism place a primary emphasis on the treatment of children as the foundation of liberty and equality. References that indicate otherwise are welcome.

The question is motivated by my consideration of “natural ethics” and ethical imperatives that serve the cause of species survival, and the following are my perhaps idealistic ramblings when I apply this thinking to my own species and community.

On the face of it our species is doing remarkably well despite our clear neglect of children and absence of liberty and equality. The bottom line question, however, is one of sustainability in the face of the whim of due process by natural selection.

Quality of life is not a function of evolution, the wretched and the fine serve just as well. Ideas still sweep our numbers and modify our internal behavior, but practical limits are maintained by nature. These practical limits do threaten the sustainability of our species and we have begun to give serious consideration to them. For example, there are now serious plans to deal with threatening asteroids, global imbalances and so on.

So, as a reasoning species we face a dilemma. Increased numbers is a natural process to ensure our survival of catastrophe. If the planet survives the impact of an asteroid or other catastrophe then our current numbers and broad distribution should serve species survival. If we reduce our numbers in the cause of increasing the quality of life then we may actually reduce the sustainability of our species.

Nature is indifferent. When one looks at the strategies of species they range from the brute force – more is better – approach, to the greater care of the child. For example, birds that lay many eggs to ensure that sufficient survive versus birds that lay few eggs and invest parental care to ensure that the few survive. The ironic thing is that both strategies work equally well it seems.

Where are we in this grand scheme and where do ethical imperatives that drive political strategies count? We surely cannot claim that a reasoned approach has led us to become the dominant species here. Our success in numbers arises as much from our cruelty and apparently irrational behavior, as it does from our compassion and wisdom. Is that OK? Is it enough? Is it how we wish to be? Do we have any choice in the matter?

I suspect the real answer is that we do not have a choice – it is what it is. A review of history suggests however that the ship can be steered by ethical imperative, by the power of ideas.

So here is a suggestion. It’s the children. An ethical imperative that would ensure both our sustainability, improve the quality of life for all, and be more reasoned and more peaceful, is one that seeks to ensure that all children of our species have equal opportunity and equal resources. That is, it is the responsibility of individuals to ensure that wealth is distributed such that each child in the community is provided with the foundations of liberty and equality.

I asked a few of the people around me about this notion and they did not seem to think that it is at all practicable. They did not feel a responsibility to the children of the community at large – only to their own children. I find this disappointing. Certainly, we naturally place our children first in our own distribution of wealth. However, while our modern notion of ensuring advantage against others may ensure the sustainability of our species, it seems a wretched affair that neglects a sustainable quality of life for all.

With respect,
Steven

PS. A point of clarification and response to an offline comment. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of individuals, not states, to distribute wealth. I am not advocating public policy, but rather an ethical imperative directed at individuals.

There are Godfather style bullies and petty bulles, but those who seek power, achieve power and then abuse their power, (whether on the grand scale of Abramoff or the petty scale of local lawyers and judges who view corruption and pay-off’s as their “daily entitlement”) are seeing their come-uppance.

In New York City, (the cultural belly-button of the universe), the hunt is on.

Clarence Norman, former head of the Brooklyn Democratice Political Machine has been convicted; Michael H. Feinberg, Surrogate Court Judge in Brooklyn’s “King’s County Surrogate’s Court has been de-frocked; and the attorneys who got their political perks in the way of fiducairy appointments and “enhanced” commissions, are being investigated as this reporter writes.

Interestingly, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg, (in a Daily News Article published a few days after he “successfully bought the election”), pledged to end judicial corruption in the King’s County Surrogate’s Court and in his city.

But also interestingly, this reporter learned that one of this countries most courageous and admirable champions of justice, an investigative journalist about whom the film “THE THIN BLUE LIE” was made, (a must-see for the rightous); a man who, (I’m told by Daniel Helfgott, writer and producer of the movie, “THE THIN BLUE LIE”), has won 5 pulitzer prizes for his journalistic exposure of political, judicial and police corruption… is currenlty employed by none other than Bloomberg News, (in New York City), heading up it’s Investigative Reporting Division.

So why isn’t Mayor Bloomberg, (who obvioulsy has something to say about how Bloomberg News is run), not allowing (if not begging) Jonathan Neumann, investigative reporter extraodinaire, to investigate and expose the blatant and pervasive judicial and political corruption in the King’s County Surrogate’s Court and in fact in most N.Y.C. Surrogate’s Courts?

The answer amounts to what seems to be “journalitic jurisdiction”.
The excuse: Bloomberg News is a Business “Rag” and doesn’t have “jurisdiction” to investigate Political scams.

But aren’t the corrupt schemes of judges and lawyers very BIG BUSINESS for those lawyers and judges who benefit from the perks of being part of the ongoing corrupt political machine… the residuary “Tammany” influence in New York? Read the rest of this entry »

I never expected to be writing my first 2006 blog about what I fondly call the AussieBastard tree, but it’s made an unremarked-upon appearance in so many TV news bulletins over this weekend of storm watches, that I figured it was worth a warble.

The Australian blue gum has such a wide presence here in the West in part because the University of California Experiment Station gave out thousands of the seeds and seedlings at the turn of the last century, according to a 1997 book by CSU, Stanislaus, librarian and archivist, Robert L. Santos. Read the rest of this entry »

This year, the third culture thinkers in the Edge community have written 117 original essays (a document of 72,500 words) in response to the 2006 Edge Question — “What is your dangerous idea?”. Here you will find indications of a new natural philosophy, founded on the realization of the import of complexity, of evolution. Very complex systems — whether organisms, brains, the biosphere, or the universe itself — were not constructed by design; all have evolved. There is a new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe, and all of the things we know in it.