Aforismo

Nunca luches contra el viento –lo cual podría ser temerario–, sino hazte amigo suyo, para que te lleve a donde tú quieras.

Amable Sánchez

Catch me if you can

A new study has found that gorillas react to games of tag the same way that humans would - by trying to maintain their advantage when they’ve got the upper hand. The research, published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, investigates the way that gorillas respond to unequal social situations during ‘tag’ chases and play fights.

If one gorilla hits another during a play fight, the gorilla who dealt the blow will tend to run away from the other one. The fact that the miscreants tend to run away suggests that they are sensitive to the fact that their actions result in an unfair competitive advantage. The gorillas then try to maintain this advantage by running away, allowing them to avoid a reciprocal whack from their victim.

Previous research has shown that humans will usually try to maintain their competitive advantage when they get the upper hand in an unequal social situation, but this is the first time that non-human behaviour in this context has been analysed in a natural setting rather than the laboratory.

As the authors point out, “animals experiencing unequal situations in the form of social play are better equipped to conform their actions to social imperatives in more serious situations”. Learning how to react in unequal situations such as playfights and games of chase could provide animals and humans alike with vital survival skills – and this research seems to show that humans are not the only species who can act opportunistically when they have the upper hand.

royalsociety.org

Aforismo

Si, mientras caminas, miras de vez en cuando hacia atrás y ves un gran vacío, sólo puede ser porque no has ido a ningún sitio. ¿Cómo puedes tener entonces la desfachatez de intentar hacer creer a los demás que estás de vuelta de todo?

Amable Sánchez

La ciudad

Dijiste “Iré a otra tierra, iré a otro mar,
Otra ciudad ha de haber mejor que esta,
Cada esfuerzo mío es una condena dictada;
y mi corazón esta -- como un muerto – enterrado.
¿Hasta cuándo seguirá mi alma en este marasmo?
Adonde vuelva mis ojos, adonde quiera que mire
veo aquí las negras ruinas de mi vida,
donde pasé tantos años que arruiné y perdí”

No hallarás nuevas tierras, no hallarás otros mares.
La ciudad te seguirá.
Vagarás por las mismas calles.
Y en los mismos barrios te harás viejo;
y entre las mismas paredes irás encaneciendo.
Siempre llegarás a esta ciudad. Para otra tierra – no lo esperes –
no tienes barco, no hay camino.
Como arruinaste aquí tu vida,
en este pequeño rincón,
así en toda la tierra la echaste a perder.

C.P.Cavafis

Aforismo

En el fútbol como en la vida, todos los partidos se pueden ganar a patadas, no a coces –dijo el pulpo–.

Amable Sánchez

Citas y citas

"El siglo de la biología es también el siglo de la bioética"
Stewart Brand
Fundador de Whole Earth Catalog

El superorganismo

El jesuita PierreTeilhard de Chardin propuso en el siglo pasado que la evolución del hombre nos llevaría a la creación de la noosfera, una esfera de inteligencia que englobaría el planeta entero. Hoy la internet parece estar realizando esa profecía.

David Riesman, Nathan Glazer y Reuel Denney en su libro de 1950, "La muchedumbre solitaria", señalaban que los individuos se estaban transformando al tener cada vez mas contactos pero de una menor profundidad, a la vez que sus valores y principios se volvían cada vez más flexibles y maleables. Este proceso no parece haberse revertido. Hoy con la “Red,” este proceso se ha multiplicado. Se calcula que la “Red” es el tercer “país” más poblado del planeta. Los individuos estamos cada vez más interconectados con más humanos, pero quizás más lejos de nuestras relaciones naturales, parientes y vecinos.

Pronto aparecerá el libro de Kevin Kelly, "What Technology Wants", en el que el autor plantea que la tecnología es como un organismo, enormemente complejo, que sigue sus propias tendencias y que está transformando a los individuos humanos en parte de un gran cerebro planetario. ¿Será que la profecía de Teilhard se esta cumpliendo? ¿Cuáles serán las consecuencias para nosotros los individuos humanos? ¿Estaremos acercándonos a lo que Nick Bostrom denomina “transhumanidad”?

Roberto Blum

Decíamos ayer… (17)

¿Quién dijo –y con qué sentido– que lo mejor es enemigo de lo bueno? Cuando yo era niño, mis juguetes –caseros, naturalmente– se reducían a tres: un aro, una peonza y una pelota. La pelota tenía un núcleo de tiras de hule, en torno al cual, como formando un ovillo, se amarraba una determinada cantidad de hilo. Todo ello se forraba después con correal: piel de perro, debidamente depilada y curtida. Mi primera pelota de goma –goma virgen, se entiende– era casi un cubo, con las aristas un poco chatas. ¿Por dónde andaría entonces la redondez?

Como hemos avanzado tanto –a las pruebas me remito–, ahora resulta que uno de los defectos que tiene el famoso Jabulani es que es demasiado redondo. Óigame usted: ¡demasiado redondo¡ ¿Y por qué no lo hicieron un poquito cuadrado o un poquito picudo? ¿No habría sido preferible jugar un mundial de fútbol con un balón de rugby? Y, claro, como, según mi abuela (q.e.p.d), una desgracia nunca viene sola, escuchen esto: “Los expertos concluyeron que, pese a su sistema gripngroove, superficie rugosa para facilitar su toma por parte de los porteros, Jabulani tenía características aerodinámicas parecidas a las de una esfera perfecta. Podría salir disparada con más velocidad, pero ir más lenta brutalmente (sic)”. “´Las costuras del Jabulani son internas, el balón parece entonces una esfera perfecta´” ¿Y por qué no le hicieron las costuras externas, para humillar un poco esa perfección? Si perfección es lo que nos sobra en el mundo, ¿o no?
“´A causa de la forma del Jabulani, el tiempo de contacto con el pie es menor´” ¡Vaya por Dios! ¿Y por qué no le añadieron una meaja de goma fuera, para que se aquerenciara un poquitillo más con el dichoso pie?

¿Qué tal si ahora todos los equipos que han perdido les echaran la culpa a la maldita perfección de la pelota? ¿A quién van a demandar? (Para que vea que no exagero, abra el diario Prensa Libre, del lunes 5 de julio del 2010, por la página 52).

Amable Sánchez

Aforismo

Si aprendes a estirar el tiempo, te alcanzará para todo; pero si te empeñas en estirarlo demasiado, no será él quien se quiebre, sino tú.

Amable Sánchez

Decíamos ayer... (16)

Suponiendo que se pueda definir el pecado como una ofensa a Dios, ¿podrá reducirse cualquier pecado a un pecado de idolatría? Del término ídolo el Diccionario de la lengua española, de la RAE, trae dos acepciones: 1. Imagen de una deidad objeto de culto. 2. Persona o cosa amada o admirada con exaltación. De idolatría trae otras dos: 1. Adoración que se da a los ídolos. 2. Amor excesivo y vehemente a alguien o a algo. Por su lado, las palabras adoración, admiración, exceso, exaltación, vehemencia parecen inclinarnos más hacia el corazón que hacia la cabeza, y menos hacia la razón que hacia el sentimiento. ¿Por qué hay personas que se consideran ateas –vaya mi sincero respeto por delante a todas– y parecen volcadas, sin margen apenas para la reflexión sensata, en una actitud idolátrica ante infinidad de cosas, actividades u otras personas? Quien dice otras personas, dice políticos, artistas, deportistas, aventureros… Quien dice actividades, dice deportes o cultos, sobre todo considerados masivamente… Quien dice cosas, dice dinero, sexo, poder, prestigio… ¿Qué lugar se le reserva a la libertad individual? ¿Qué lugar a la razón, erigida sobre la libertad individual? ¿Qué lugar a la voluntad, erigida junto a la razón, sobre la libertad individual? ¿No parece trágicamente paradójico que muchos de los supuestamente más celosos de su propia libertad parezcan estar siendo víctimas de la supuesta libertad de otros? ¿Qué sentido tiene combatir un fanatismo desde otro, una postura dogmática desde otra postura no menos dogmática?

Amable Sánchez

Aforismo

Cuando ya no te quede arena, ni papel, ni pergamino, ni corteza, ni nubes, ni viento donde escribir, sigue escribiendo en las líneas de tu propia mano. Después lee despacio, corrige tranquilo cuanto tengas que corregir, pide perdón si el caso lo amerita, y no te asustes de tu verdad ni de ninguna otra.

Amable Sánchez

La última generación

El filosofo Peter Singer recientemente preguntó en un blog si el mundo sería mejor si la nuestra fuera la última generación. Singer se estaba refiriendo a la obra de David Benatar, “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence” en la cual se plantea que la existencia no se justifica nunca. Vivir es sufrir. Una visión muy oriental, muy budista, pero compartida por muchas personas según se observa de los comentarios que sus lectores hicieron.

Otro numeroso grupo de comentaristas afirmaban la vida y la existencia, sin negar que vivir incluye el sufrir, pero consideran sin embargo, que es mejor existir que no existir.

Sin duda hay épocas propensas al pesimismo y al nihilismo. Épocas en el que las personas no ven propósito a sus vidas o salidas a sus problemas – individuales o colectivos – y se rinden en la búsqueda de sentido. Quizás este sea uno de esos períodos.

Afortunadamente todavía hay muchos individuos que creen que a la vida se le puede dar un sentido, un propósito y que esto hace que la vida, la existencia, aun con el sufrimiento que implica, es valiosa y merece ser vivida plenamente.

Roberto Blum

An Uninformed Conscience

Thirteen years ago, when I started writing this column for America, two of my early offerings dealt with the strategic function of conscience in our ethical lives. As the years have gone by, and especially during the past year with its increased polarization of moral positions in church and society, I am more convinced than ever that we need a clear understanding of just what conscience is and how it functions.

Although there is a range of opinions concerning what conscience is—from an inner voice, a feeling or a sense of shame to the internalized values of parents or culture—I propose that the most effective account is the one offered by St. Thomas Aquinas: Conscience is a particular kind of judgment, a moral judgment, by which we apply our knowledge of good and evil to practical action.

A conscience may be certain, but that does not mean it is correct.

As a practical moral judgment, conscience takes the form: “I ought to do X.” Aquinas points out that when I make such a judgment, I should follow it. But acting on my conscience is not enough. Like any other kind of judgment—business, artistic, scientific or athletic—we base our moral judgments not only on principles but on evidence, data and information. A judgment made without data, evidence or information is a foolish one indeed. Thus, Aquinas thought it is as important to inform one’s conscience properly as it is to follow it. If I refuse to look at evidence or information in forming my moral judgment, I am actually refusing to act morally.

It is this second point that seems most neglected in ethical discourse today. There is little doubt that various religions, nation states and philosophies hold different ethical principles. But whether one’s principles are based on duty, the will of God, submission to Allah, happiness, liberty or the common good, such principles are empty if they are not applied to the specifics of evidence, information and data.

Unfortunately, it is the resistance to evidence and information that marks so much of our present moral discourse. That is why the “marketplace” of ideas, or the “public square” has become so segmented and rigid.

In the world of politics and media, we find an increasing segmentation not only of markets but of convictions as well. Information is edited and selected to conform to the conviction of the viewer or the voter. Thus, information no longer informs or challenges one’s moral judgement; it only confirms opinion, whether that opinion is warranted or not. Spend one evening comparing the programs offered by MSNBC and Fox News. Compare Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Whom do they ridicule? What is their presumed moral universe? What information do they never consider? If we listen to only one side of these polarities, we are not forming our judgment, we are propagandizing it.

No matter what the issue, competing ideologies offer plenty of moral judgments; but there is little willingness to address data or information offered by the opposition. Undocumented immigration, tax reform, the Free Gaza movement, the Gulf Coast oil disaster, the financial crisis, all generate fierce opinion. But it is almost impossible to find any polarized antagonist willing to examine carefully data or arguments that challenge ideology.

In the church, things are just as segmented. I regularly receive messages by e-mail from the right and left. Both sides seem totally certain, but they are also totally ignorant of the arguments and evidence on the other side. As Aquinas would say, a conscience may be certain; but that does not mean it is correct. So think of the issues: abortion, global warming, President Obama, the health care bill, immigration reform, the wars in the Persian Gulf. Do you find any true engagement of the issues? Or do you find only assertions?

As for those who aspire to form the consciences of Catholic believers, they too must do more than make pronouncements. They must engage the evidence and data offered by those who dissent from their opinion.

To refuse to inspect hostile data or listen to challenging information is to reveal a conscience that has capitulated to ideology.

If a nation or church forms its people to accept assertions blindly, without supporting evidence, it will form a community not of moral agents but of menaces. They may be sincere, but they will be sincerely dangerous.

John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., is a professor of philosophy at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Mo.

Aforismo

No abras nunca la boca antes de pensar y después de pensar ciérrala pronto, pues la estupidez es la distancia más corta entre el bostezo y la falta de sentido.

Amable Sánchez

Anaforismo

El proceso llamado anaforismo, establece la conexión entre poemas, antipoemas, artefactos, chistes, ecopoemas, sermones, etc. A través de los rasgos de la anáfora muestra diversos grados de realización. Los ejemplos de este diálogo entre textos son numerosísimos y las modalidades varias: transformación, imitación, continuación, caricatura, condensación, amplificación (Genette, 1986), pero todas ellas poseen el signo de la repetición o, vuelta de un elemento (frase, oración, verso, palabra) que establece o envía al texto precedente.

ANAFORISMO: si es necedad de necios tratar de convencer a otro necio, ¿es sabiduría de sabios tratar de convencer a otro sabio?

Roberto Blum

Aforismo

Solo un necio puede perder el tiempo tratando de convencer a otro necio.

Amable Sánchez

Renta de vientres, madres subrogadas

Recientemente en la India nacieron unos gemelos, hijos de una pareja alemana pero de un vientre indio rentado. Los niños Nikolas y Leonard Balaz se encontraron sin documentos de identidad nacional y atorados en la India. La India no reconoce la nacionalidad india a los hijos de una madre india subrogada y Alemania tampoco les otorga la nacionalidad a los hijos genéticos de sus nacionales nacidos de un vientre extranjero.

Después de un largo proceso judicial, la familia Balaz logró resolver el problema legal y obtuvieron las visas necesarias para poder regresar con sus hijos a su país, Alemania.

Asimismo, un creciente número de parejas de hombres homosexuales acuden a ese país para obtener la renta de un vientre materno y así obtener un hijo natural, genéticamente propio.

El gobierno de la India hasta hace poco no se inmiscuía en esta novedosa situación, pero recientemente ha comenzado a regular este nuevo comercio. ¿Qué efectos tendrá esta nueva regulación? ¿Serán mayormente positivos o al contrario, sus efectos serán mayormente negativos? ¿Reconocer, permitir y regular este tipo de comercio de personas es moral y es ético?

Sin duda, los avances técnicos en los métodos reproductivos nos plantean cada día mayores dilemas morales, éticos y jurídicos.

La India es un país que por sus características demográficas (1,200 millones de habitantes) y económicas (un ingreso de 1,000 dólares per cápita al año) se ha convertido en la meca de quienes desean obtener un bebe de un vientre subrogado. El costo de obtener un bebe propio de un vientre rentado es una quinta parte del costo en los Estados Unidos, es decir unos 20,000 dólares en la India. La mujer que renta su vientre recibe alrededor de 7,500 dólares, razón por la que existen muchas candidatas para escoger.

Si las nuevas regulaciones de la India dificultan la renta de vientres, esta actividad se trasladará a la informalidad y la ilegalidad o bien a otros países que no pongan obstáculos a una actividad que tiene una creciente demanda y sin duda una creciente oferta. Pero aun así, cabe preguntarse sobre la moralidad de tal actividad y la prudencia de tal regulación.

Roberto Blum

Surrogate Motherhood in India, Ethical and Moral Implications

Is surrogacy ethical? Is outsourcing surrogacy to developing countries ethical? Though on its most fundamental level, surrogate motherhood can be interpreted as an economic transaction, the reality is far more complex due to the degree of intimacy involved. On top of the basic economics of the situation are layers of emotional complexity, rights of bodily autonomy, and unaddressed questions of women’s rights in developing countries. Each of these topics will be briefed below, and explored in greater depth on additional pages of this website.

Exploitation vs. Empowerment:
Question: Is surrogacy an act of dehumanization or empowerment for the poor women who agree to the procedure? Is this exploitation or opportunity?

Arguments: Critics of outsourcing surrogacy argue that payment for bodily services dehumanizes the surrogate mother and exploits her reproductive organs and capability for personal gain of the wealthy. Books such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale depict dystopic worlds where child-making is performed by mass incubators (Huxley) and subjugated handservants (Atwood). Dr. John Lantos from the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City is one of strongest opposers to outsourcing surrogacy: he argues that the practice only raises the risk of baby farms in developing countries, compounded by the possibility that increasing competition among clinics will compromise safety measures for these Indian women.1

Supporters of surrogacy, however, highlight the overwhelming economic opportunities for these women in light of their educational background and social circumstances. Interviews with these women generally result in optimistic correspondences, with women expressing positive outlooks on buying a home, educating their children, or paying off debt. If surrogacy contracts are transparent and surrogate mothers are protected by adequate laws, then one could argue that shifting the income generation to mothers does lead to empowerment. Evidence for this viewpoint could stem from the case of microfinance and Mohammad Yunus, where microloans to female heads of families resulting in a positive case of general community development.

Reproductive Autonomy vs. Coercion
Question: How much control do these women have over their bodies and reproductive capacities? Is there evidence of coercion by family members or in-laws?

Arguments: Feminists might argue that equal rights for women means giving women autonomy to choose for themselves, to choose their lifestyle, sexual, and reproductive freedom. With that premise in mind, telling a woman that hosting a surrogate pregnancy dehumanizes her just imposes a new form of paternalism. Why not let each woman choose for herself?

In addition, arguments based on democracy posit the need for reproductive freedom and procreative liberty, of the negative right of interference by government on matters of personal choice. Along these lines, the silence of the Indian government is in line with values of democracy, with ethical guidelines advocating for a woman’s autonomy to choose her own reproductive rights.

The counterargument to this construct dwells on the concept of choice. How much choice does a poor women in India really have? With four or five children, an absent husband, elders to care for, and limited educational opportunities, does this woman really embody the feminists’ idea of choice? How can we know whether or not her husband or intimate partner forced her to “volunteer” her services? The patrilineal marriage system in India may grant substantial influence to mother-in-laws in pressuring these women to undertake surrogacy arrangements. Currently, community stigma against surrogate mothers forces many women to live in temporary apartments or keep their pregnancies secret.2 One woman tells people that she is bearing a child for a relative.3 In this scenario, the existence of voluntary choice is debatable, if not arguably invalid.

Religious vs. Cultural Concerns

The ethical debate on surrogacy has often looked to religious roots and cultural backgrounds in search of an answer. One of the first ancient references to infertility occurs in Genesis, when Jacob’s wife, like many of her Biblical peers, was unable to bear a child. After praying to God and begging her husband, she sends Jacob “unto” her maid and then adopts the resulting child as her own. Sara did likewise, sending Abraham to her maid Hagar, saying, “I shall obtain children by her.”4

It is often difficult to disassociate the influence of distinctly religious factors from other cultural conditions affecting women’s reproductive health. Further, religious groups often exert influence on civil authorities in matters of reproduction. Joseph Schenker has studied some of the religious differences towards ethics in surrogacy, and his findings are quite interesting. In Jewish law, a childless couple falls within the category of personal suffering and there exists a clear obligation to assist them in every permissible way, as long as no one is harmed in the process.5 The Catholic Church’s statement on assisted reproduction is clear: assisted reproduction is not accepted. The Eastern Orthodox Church supports medical and surgical treatment of infertility, and the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon, Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witness, and Mennonite religions all have liberal attitudes toward infertility treatments. Islamic law encourages attempts to cure infertility, but only to the extent that IVF technologies involve the husband and wife.6

Dr. Anand Kumar, Ph.D., Chairman of Hope Infertility Clinic and Research Foundation, explores the Hindu perspective on surrogacy in his paper “Ethical Aspects of Assisted Reproduction – an Indian viewpoint.” He explains that Hindus have never seriously debated assisted reproduction because of their belief in karma, which preordains the kind of life an individual would lead after birth. There is no conflict between Hinduism and assisted reproduction, which is generally accepted as a form of treatment and not an infringement on religious beliefs.7

If done properly, Dr. Malpani of the Malphani Infertiliy Clinic believe that “surrogacy meets all three pillars of medical ethics: autonomy (allowing people to decide for themselves); beneficence (doing good); and non-maleficence (doing no harm).”8 Plausible? Perhaps. Controversial? Definitely. It is still too early to predict what effects the growing surrogacy industry will have on reproductive regulations in India.

www.stanford.edu/.../Surrogacy/moralethical.html

Aforismo

Desconfía siempre del que crea tener una respuesta para todo.

Amable Sánchez

Aforismo

Sé consciente siempre de tu ignorancia: el día que te olvides de ella, habrás terminado de buscar, de preguntar y de aprender.

Amable Sánchez

We should remember the Shoah in a way that helps to heal the world

I first learned about the Shoah through a newsreel I saw in the fifth grade. The boy next to me started to laugh, and a girl got sick. I wept. "How could this be?" I asked. That memory haunts me to this day but I still don't have the answer.

Memory has been essential to Jewish survival. Our ability to remember our roots, our traditions, our stories and rituals has enabled us to thrive as a distinct people while other great civilizations have disappeared. The Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Chassidism, even saw memory in spiritual terms. "Exile is in forgetting, and redemption is in memory," he taught.

It is not clear just how redemptive memory can be, especially when it comes to the Shoah. How does one redeem the murder of so many innocents? How does one redeem one's faith in humanity, let alone in humanity's Creator? How does one move from the Shoah's horror to the future's promise?

There are no easy answers. Nevertheless, I think we must do two things that we have not yet done, or at least not done well.

First, the Jewish community must change the way we frame the Shoah. For too long this catastrophe has defined contemporary Jewish life. We are a traumatized people, and our trauma has kept us from moving beyond our own pain. This is understandable. World War II was not very long ago. Our suffering was immense — beyond imagining — and the world has yet to come fully to terms with what happened. Nevertheless, there is no future for us, no redemption in our collective conscience, if we define our past primarily by what the Nazis did to us. We must find a way to remember the Shoah without the Shoah overwhelming our idea of who we are.

We cannot bring back the dead, but we can live in ways that affirm who they were. This process begins by honoring Shoah survivors not so much for what they endured, but how they carried on with their lives. We are great at seeking the stories of their persecution, but not at trying to understand the sources of their great courage.

Next, the Jewish community must recognize that the Shoah was not just about us. Yes, we were the Nazi's main victims, but five million others also died at their hands — five million! That is almost the entire population of the San Francisco Bay Area — unimaginable! It is time we opened ourselves to the pain of other victims of Nazi terror. First, it is their due; it is simply not right to act as if we were the only ones who suffered during those evil times.

Our healing will not be complete unless we can recognize the suffering of other victims of radical evil. Sharing the pain of others doesn't only lighten the weight of the Shoah, but gives us opportunities for real tikkun — real repair, real healing. It is a sad truth that as long as the Shoah remains only about Jews, only Jews will care. In fact, by focusing exclusively on Jewish suffering, we have helped make the Shoah largely irrelevant to the rest of the world. Our recognition of non-Jewish Nazi victims makes clear that the Shoah was not "just a Jewish problem," but a human one. Human rights, once denied to one group, are easily taken from others.

At the dedication of the U.S. Memorial Holocaust Museum, Elie Wiesel declared that we might as well start building the Bosnia wing. Since then, we could add several other wings to represent nearly every continent. Ultimately, the Shoah's bloody finger points to a global issue that includes the memories of millions upon millions of genocide victims, people killed before, during and after the Shoah. Armenians, Cambodians and Rwandans, as well as many other victims of genocide, shared our fate and share our future equally.

Emil Fakenheim, a Shoah survivor and preeminent Jewish thinker of the 20th century, proposed a new commandment in addition to the traditional 613 that have symbolized Jewish law and life for the past 2000 years. His 614th commandment: to survive. But survival for its own sake is neither meaningful nor moral. As we move forward, as we seek to redeem the memory of all those who died in the Holocaust, we must find a way to reach beyond the notion of survival to one of human progress where "Never Again" applies to all people everywhere.

Rabbi George Gittleman