UN chief amps up dangers to humanity

Excellencies,

I am here to sound the alarm:  The world must wake up.

We are on the edge of an abyss — and moving in the wrong direction.

Our world has never been more threatened.

Or more divided.

We face the greatest cascade of crises in our lifetimes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has supersized glaring inequalities. 

The climate crisis is pummeling the planet.

Upheaval from Afghanistan to Ethiopia to Yemen and beyond has thwarted peace.

A surge of mistrust and misinformation is polarizing people and paralyzing societies.

Human rights are under fire. 

Science is under assault.  

And economic lifelines for the most vulnerable are coming too little and too late — if they come at all.

Solidarity is missing in action — just when we need it most. 

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly yesterday the Secretary-General, António Guterres, expanded on his warning last week in launching the Our Common Agenda project that unless action was taken rapidly, the outlook for humankind was frightening.

In June, he was unanimously re-elected to his position, giving him another five years at the helm of the 193-member organisation. So he is a man whose words carry a lot of weight.

Because of the sobering words used in his speech yesterday, Guterres' warning did get some airplay on TV and in news sites, but only in the usual 20-second sound bite form. But let's give our attention more fully to why Guterres feels so compelled to "sound the alarm". While we do so, note how he frames the series of crises we face as a breakdown of morality. 

For a start, he says:

Perhaps one image tells the tale of our times. The picture we have seen from some parts of the world of COVID-19 vaccines … in the garbage. Expired and unused. On the one hand, we see the vaccines developed in record time — a victory of science and human ingenuity. On the other hand, we see that triumph undone by the tragedy of a lack of political will, selfishness and mistrust. 

A surplus in some countries.  Empty shelves in others. A majority of the wealthier world vaccinated.  Over 90 percent of Africans still waiting for their first dose. This is a moral indictment of the state of our world. It is an obscenity. We passed the science test. But we are getting an F in Ethics.

 World leaders are also not giving the necessary attention to climate change:

The climate alarm bells are also ringing at fever pitch.

The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a code red for humanity. We see the warning signs in every continent and region. Scorching temperatures.  Shocking biodiversity loss.  Polluted air, water and natural spaces.  And climate-related disasters at every turn.

Climate scientists tell us it’s not too late to keep alive the 1.5 degree goal of the Paris Climate Agreement. But the window is rapidly closing.

We need a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030.  Yet a recent UN report made clear that with present national climate commitments, emissions will go up by 16% by 2030. 

That would condemn us to a hellscape of temperature rises of at least 2.7 degrees above pre-industrial levels.  A catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the OECD just reported a gap of at least $20 billion in essential and promised climate finance to developing countries.

We are weeks away from the UN Climate Conference in Glasgow, but seemingly light years away from reaching our targets. We must get serious.  And we must act fast. 

Here is another powerful section:

Excellencies,

COVID and the climate crisis have exposed profound fragilities as societies and as a planet. Yet instead of humility in the face of these epic challenges, we see hubris [an arrogance that invites disaster]. Instead of the path of solidarity, we are on a dead end to destruction.

At the same time, another disease is spreading in our world today:  a malady of mistrust. When people see promises of progress denied by the realities of their harsh daily lives… When they see their fundamental rights and freedoms curtailed… When they see petty — as well as grand — corruption around them… When they see billionaires joyriding to space while millions go hungry on earth… When parents see a future for their children that looks even bleaker than the struggles of today...  And when young people see no future at all…

The people we serve and represent may lose faith not only in their governments and institutions — but in the values that have animated the work of the United Nations for over 75 years. Peace.  Human rights.  Dignity for all.  Equality.  Justice.  Solidarity.

A breakdown in trust is leading to a breakdown in values. Promises, after all, are worthless if people do not see results in their daily lives. Failure to deliver creates space for some of the darkest impulses of humanity. It provides oxygen for easy fixes, pseudo-solutions and conspiracy theories. 

It is kindling to stoke ancient grievances.  Cultural supremacy.  Ideological dominance.  Violent misogyny.  The targeting of the most vulnerable including refugees and migrants.   

 But what can we do?

Excellencies,

We face a moment of truth. Now is the time to deliver. Now is the time to restore trust. Now is the time to inspire hope. And I do have hope. The problems we have created are problems we can solve. Humanity has shown that we are capable of great things when we work together. That is the raison d’être of our United Nations. 

But let’s be frank.  Today’s multilateral system is too limited in its instruments and capacities, in relation to what is needed for effective governance of managing global public goods. It is too fixed on the short-term. We need to strengthen global governance.  We need to focus on the future.  We need to renew the social contract.  We need to ensure a United Nations fit for a new era. 

Guterres then covered what he called the world's "Six Great Divides", the first being the lack of peace. This is made clear by the fact of regional wars in Africa and unsettled conflicts in Iraq, Libya and Syria. However, also having an impact on global stability is the rumbling strife between the United States and China: 

It will be impossible to address dramatic economic and development challenges while the world’s two largest economies are at odds with each other. 

Yet I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial, and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence — and ultimately the risk of two different military and geo-political strategies.

This is a recipe for trouble.  It would be far less predictable than the Cold War. 

Dialogue is key to reconciling differences, and the will to understand each other. That is true, too, for the next of the Great Divides, climate change:

This requires bridging trust between North and South. ... We need more ambition from all countries in three key areas — mitigation, finance and adaptation.

More ambition on mitigation — means countries committing to carbon neutrality by mid-century —  and to concrete 2030 emissions reductions targets that will get us there, backed up with credible actions now.

More ambition on finance — means developing nations finally seeing the promised US$100 billion a year for climate action, fully mobilizing the resources of both international financial institutions and the private sector, too.

More ambition on adaptation — means developed countries living up to their promise of credible support to developing countries to build resilience to save lives and livelihoods.

This means 50 per cent of all climate finance provided by developed countries and multilateral development banks should be dedicated to adaptation.

To prevent a worsening of the ravages of climate change...:

Don’t wait for others to make the first move.  Do your part. Around the world, we see civil society — led by young people — fully mobilized to tackle the climate crisis. The private sector is increasingly stepping up. 

Governments must also summon the full force of their fiscal policymaking powers to make the shift to green economies. By taxing carbon and pollution instead of people’s income to more easily make the switch to sustainable green jobs.

By ending subsidies to fossil fuels and freeing up resources to invest back into health care, education, renewable energy, sustainable food systems, and social protections for their people.

By committing to no new coal plants.  If all planned coal power plants become operational, we will not only be clearly above 1.5 degrees — we will be well above 2 degrees.

This is a planetary emergency. We need coalitions of solidarity—between countries that still depend heavily on coal, and countries that have the financial and technical resources to support their transition. We have the opportunity and the obligation to act.  

The third of the Great Divides is inequality:

We must bridge the gap between rich and poor, within and among countries. That starts by ending the pandemic for everyone, everywhere. 

We urgently need a global vaccination plan to at least double vaccine production and ensure that vaccines reach seventy percent of the world’s population in the first half of 2022. [...]

We have no time to lose. A lopsided recovery is deepening inequalities. Richer countries could reach pre-pandemic growth rates by the end of this year while the impacts may last for years in low-income countries.

Is it any wonder? Advanced economies are investing nearly 28 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product into economic recovery. For middle-income countries, that number falls to 6.5 per cent. And it plummets to 1.8 per cent for the least developed countries — a tiny percentage of a much smaller amount.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the International Monetary Fund projects that cumulative economic growth per capita over the next five years will be 75 percent less than the rest of the world.

Ways of mitigating inequality include:

Countries shouldn’t have to choose between servicing debt and serving people.

With effective international solidarity, it would be possible at the national level to forge a new social contract that includes universal health coverage and income protection, housing and decent work, quality education for all, and an end to discrimination and violence against women and girls. 

I call on countries to reform their tax systems and finally end tax evasion, money laundering and illicit financial flows.

Fourth: 

Bridging the gender divide is not only a matter of justice for women and girls. It’s a game-changer for humanity. Societies with more equal representation are more stable and peaceful. They have better health systems and more vibrant economies.

Women’s equality is essentially a question of power. We must urgently transform our male-dominated world and shift the balance of power, to solve the most challenging problems of our age.

That means more women leaders in parliaments, cabinets and board rooms. It means women fully represented and making their full contribution, everywhere. 

I urge governments, corporations and other institutions to take bold steps, including benchmarks and quotas, to create gender parity from the leadership down.

That half of humanity has no access to the internet points to the reality of the digital divide:

We must connect everyone by 2030 [...] — to embrace the promise of digital technology while protecting people from its perils. 

One of the greatest perils we face is the growing reach of digital platforms and the use and abuse of data. A vast library of information is being assembled about each of us. Yet we don’t even have the keys to that library. We don’t know how this information has been collected, by whom or for what purposes.

But we do know our data is being used commercially — to boost corporate profits. Our behavior patterns are being commodified and sold like futures contracts. Our data is also being used to influence our perceptions and opinions. Governments and others can exploit it to control or manipulate people’s behaviour, violating human rights of individuals or groups, and undermining democracy.

This is not science fiction.  This is today’s reality. And it requires a serious discussion.

So, too, do other dangers in the digital frontier. I am certain, for example, that any future major confrontation — and heaven forbid it should ever happen — will start with a massive cyberattack.

That certainly is a sobering prediction. Servers and digital pathways around the world could be impacted by such an attack. For our knowledge-based global society, this would  truly be another of Guterres' catastrophes. 

Guterres goes on to the final Great Divide, the intergenerational mistrust affecting today’s 1.8 billion young people:

Young people will inherit the consequences of our decisions — good and bad. At the same time, we expect 10.9 billion people to be born by century’s end. We need their talents, ideas and energies. 

Young people need more than support. They need a seat at the table [...]

Young people need a vision of hope for the future. Recent research showed the majority of young people across ten countries are suffering from high levels of anxiety and distress over the state of our planet. Some 60 percent of your future voters feel betrayed by their governments.

We must prove to children and young people that despite the seriousness of the situation, the world has a plan — and governments are committed to implementing it.

The urgency of Guterres' warning to world leaders come through in his concluding statements: "We need to act now"...,  "with real engagement"..., "to bridge the Great Divides and save humanity and the planet".

Throughout his speech, it is clear the UN chief really does believe that it is a matter of certainty that we, in this decade, are at the point of saving humanity — and the only planet where we know life exists.

Therefore, his final thoughts are all the more pertinent:

We can live up to the promise of a better, more peaceful world.

The best way to advance the interests of one’s own citizens is by advancing the interests of our common future.

Interdependence is the logic of the 21st century.

This is our time. 

A moment for transformation. 

An era to re-ignite multilateralism.

An age of possibilities. 

Let us restore trust.  Let us inspire hope. 

And let us start right now. 

We have a moral obligation to open ourselves to change in our lifestyle and in the government policies we support. It's often the public's lack of support that pushes weak politicians to not do the right thing to save the environment, reverse climate change, and establish a social framework that makes possible greater participation by women and those on low incomes. We have to step up to the plate and get involved fully in reshaping our society with solidarity and the common good foremost in our minds and hearts.

For ideas on how to reshape society, refer to my previous post on the Solidarity Party.

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Solidarity Party: Time to restore society

Family business decision-making. Photo Paul Efe from Pexels

One day the American Solidarity Party might achieve sufficient voter support to be in a position where it is invited to enter into a formal coalition with one of the two main parties. That would require Christians to vote with the strength of their convictions, to vote in a manner where they do not have to block off one part of their conscience but can joyfully apply the principles they want to uphold.

Voting with a peg on the nose has become the state of affairs for those who over the long term have voted for a workers' party, such as the Labor/Labour Party in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. (Note the spelling difference in Australia.) Of course, this is because those parties now find it easier to pursue fashionable cultural reforms rather than revamping the modes of doing business and other elements of governance of the economy that have given rise to gross inequality of incomes, and the flow-on effect of stress on family life and welfare services.

The American Solidarity Party introduces its platform this way: 

The American Solidarity Party is committed to addressing the needs of the human family and the earth that sustains us with prudent policies informed by Christian democratic values. We offer the following proposals as a solid foundation for a government that supports life, justice, peace, and a healthy environment for all.

The party uses everyday language to spell out how it views economics - "political economy (economics) is a branch of political ethics". On that foundation it "rejects models of economic behavior that undermine human dignity with greed and naked self-interest":

We advocate for an economic system which focuses on creating a society of widespread ownership (sometimes referred to as “distributism”*) rather than having the effect of degrading the human person as a cog in the machine.

Its Economics platform is worth a read to glimpse how we could be living while in a modern industrialized society: 

🔅 Our goal is to create conditions which allow single-income families to support themselves with dignity.

🔅 We support policies that encourage the formation and strengthening of labor unions. Efforts by private entities to use public power to prevent union activities or to retaliate against workers who organize for their rights ought to be resisted at every level.

🔅 We call for the repeal of corporate welfare policies, for shifting the tax system to target unearned income and reckless financiers, and for changing regulations to benefit small and locally-owned businesses rather than multinational corporations. Economic rentiers and speculators who produce nothing but only take from workers through gimmicks allowed by corrupt relationships with public power need to pay their fair share through taxes on land, capital gains, and financial transactions.

🔅 We will work to restore the requirement that corporations must serve a public good in order to be granted the benefit of limited liability. We support the prohibition of corporate bylaws and the repeal of state legislation requiring shareholder profit to trump considerations such as employee wellbeing and environmental protection.

🔅 To deprive workers of their wages is a “sin that cries out to heaven.” The Department of Labor must investigate all cases of wage theft and fraud in a swift manner.

🔅 We support mechanisms that allow workers to share in the ownership and management of their production, such as trade guilds, cooperatives, and employee stock ownership programs. Rather than consigning workers to wage slavery under far-away masters, such ownership models respect their essential dignity.

🔅 Industrial policy and economic incentives need to be re-ordered to place human dignity first and to recognize that the family is the basic unit of economic production. We are committed to policies that emphasize local production, family-owned businesses, and cooperative ownership structures. Measures that prevent large corporations from passing on their transportation costs to local communities will help re-energize local production and local enterprises.

🔅 The bloated, “too big to fail,” multinational economic concerns which dominate the economic landscape need to be brought to heel and concerted antitrust action must be taken to break up the oligarchies that use their private power to corruptly influence public governance.

🔅 The monopolistic power of corporations, especially in the area of patent and copyright law, allows them to price-gouge workers and families. We call for a restructuring of intellectual property laws to encourage innovation rather than rent-seeking.

🔅 We support and encourage measures which allow local communities to limit the power of outside interests in managing their land. Tenant unions, community land trusts, and community-oriented development are to be supported in the effort to ensure the availability of affordable and inclusive housing. Allowing local communities more flexibility will allow for more diverse and innovative solutions to local problems rather than imposing them from a far-off central authority.

🔅 We advocate for social safety nets that adequately provide for the material needs of the most vulnerable in society. These programs need to also help the most vulnerable find a path out of poverty by providing them with the tools they need in order to fully participate in their communities with dignity, and not trap them as subsidized labor for private interests. 

🔅 To restore long-term solvency to the Social Security trust fund, we call for an end to the FICA tax cap.

🔅 Unemployment benefits need to include the option of allowing beneficiaries to take their benefits in the form of start-up capital to start or purchase businesses or create cooperative enterprises that help them to escape poverty on their own terms.

🔅 Natural monopolies and the common inheritance of the natural world need to be closely managed and protected by the public and not surrendered for a pittance to private greed. Our support of private property rights does not mean that we should surrender our common property into the hands of private oligarchs. Policies that deliver citizens their fair share of our common wealth and inheritance of natural resources are to be encouraged in the form of a citizen’s dividend and baby bonds.

🔅 Predatory practices which care more for stockholder value than human life must cease. We call for community-oriented lending practices and mutual aid organizations to replace predatory lending agents that target poor people and working-class communities. We must reject a financial system based on saddling workers with debt and interest payments that merely fuel consumerism and instead embrace one that encourages productive activity.

Societies all around the world are coming to the realisation that the way we have been living cannot continue and a new framework has to be put in place - with urgency!  

[*] Distributism

For further reading about alternatives to the worldwide status quo, see these:

[X] Mondragon Corporation - business group of worker cooperatives

[X] Cooperation Jackson - cooperative businesses in Jackson, Mississippi

[X] International Cooperative Alliance

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Gender issues: It's the young who suffer

With gender issues getting a lot of air play these days it's useful to keep watch on what young people are picking up on and how it is influencing their thinking.

It's also valuable in interpreting trends in society to have "insider information", especially from those who can report on how young people are responding to the gender diversity campaign that is being mounted in Western societies by small groups whose efforts are fanned by a mass media that is either uncaring about the social implications or fully captured by a newly fashionable storyline.

Clearly, the colour, the glam, and the edginess of transgenderism has filled the imagination of young people, and one young (mid-twenties) woman has just gone on record to describe in detail how all this has become an attractive talking point for teenagers. The tragic consequences, as highlighted in the British court case of girl-to-boy transitioner Kiera Bell (more about this later in this post), include a life that is beset with regret and depression. 

This American woman became part of a "community" of fans on Twitter that attracted a lot of  young teens. She relates how when interest in the latest news on what was the focus of the community died down it was not long before LGBTQ+ sexual orientation came up for discussion: 

Every time the discussion in the feeds died down to where there was just no new [community] stuff [...] to talk about, all the conversation slowly but surely shifted back to sexual orientation and gender.  From fan-ships of perfect LGB couples to ‘Hey, I drew this person but as a trans-female!’, to even forgoing pretending to talk about their interests and just discussing their own gender and sex presentation with their other online friends, it became quickly very clear to me that A. I no longer really belonged here, and B. Every single one of these kids was obsessed. Every. Single. One.

And the worst part is, not all of them are even remotely candidates for what we might call ‘prone’ to gender dysphoria or anything else. They’ve just learned it’s cool to have a gender identity, and they’re parroting everything they’re hearing everywhere else. [My emphasis - BS]

The writer then gives two examples of exchanges during dead news days for the comunity:

The first one went like this: Person A (OP) posted something along the lines of “I’ve decided to test (note the word ‘test’) if I’m gender fluid. I’d like everyone to call me (opposite sex pronouns) for a while.  Immediately, many comments with affirmation and specifically addressing OP as opposite sex emerged. OP reacted with glee. 

The second instance, and the one that really broke me: Person B posts repeated questions about female gender orientation. Asks what it means if they are a tomboy and if that counts as a gender presentation. Is told no. Continues (in a series of posts, that because I followed this person I saw all of) to ask more and more questions including things like ‘what if I’m comfortable being female but I like masculine things and sometimes feel drawn to masculinity?

What does that mean?’ I didn’t see a whole lot of replies to this person, but today, they posted that they are now identifying as a “Demigirl” with the appropriate flag. I had to look this one up [see here].

[...] you’ll learn that a ‘Demigirl’ is a female who ‘mostly’ identifies with being a woman, but not completely, and is partially gender-fluid as a result. You’ll also learn that the official ‘flag’ for this hybrid identity was scribbled out by some person on reddit only about a month ago. A month. 

So, less than a year ago probably someone came up with this idea, a month ago they made a flag, and less than a day ago a young girl on the internet adopted this as ‘proof’ that their slight attachment to masculine stereotypes fits them in on the gender-identity board! Praise and affirmation followed.

Now to the cry from the heart! Our rapporteur identifies why the stakes are high in this matter:

Still don’t think the gender craze is coming for your kids? Do your kids interact at all in fan groups? Do they talk to people online? Do they go to public school? All it takes now is a half-day of questioning to find your perfect gender flag, and you’re good to go.

Forget trying to turn off their phones, if parents aren’t talking to their children right now about what sex (and gender) really are and how varied and multifaceted they can be while still existing in a binary then they might as well be handing them over to the gender-packaging factory to receive their stripes.

The instant someone says “I don’t always adhere to stereotypes” a million voices are waiting to tell them which of 364,000 identities they can fit into to be special and cool just like everyone else. If they don’t have a response for that, it’s over. Period. 

Another insight from this writer is that she, herself, as a girl was usually more interested in what the boys were doing than what her sisters were absorbed with. However, her mother had told her that she had been the same when growing up:

I’m a happy adult female now, and I was never truly gender-questioning. I just thought, for a while, that boys had more fun than I did, so I wanted to be one.  But that, in and of itself, is a thought that’s deep enough for modern gender activists to insist I be transitioned immediately and put on life-altering hormones, never given a chance to grow up or grow out of questioning, but affirmed [...] instantly! 

If I, like that young girl online, had been handed a ‘gender-affirming’ flag and an identity that ‘made sense’ out of why I was different from my peers, I might have jumped at it, especially without the presence of a wise older person to tell me I wasn’t anything different than what she’d been as a child. This is the problem, this is why this kind of thing is so dangerous and toxic and wrong. 

The life of Kiera Bell has shown what a dangerous situation society gets into by not giving more attention to how young people's attitudes are being shaped by propaganda - the correct word in the context (see here). Bell transitioned to male but has detransitioned, and took to court the British clinic that had handled her case. She has given an account of her circumstances here. When she was little...

I was accepted by the boys—I dressed in typically boy clothing and was athletic. I never had an issue with my gender; it wasn’t on my mind.

Then puberty hit, and everything changed for the worse. A lot of teenagers, especially girls, have a hard time with puberty, but I didn’t know this. I thought I was the only one who hated how my hips and breasts were growing. Then my periods started, and they were disabling. I was often in pain and drained of energy.

Also, I could no longer pass as “one of the boys,” so lost my community of male friends. But I didn’t feel I really belonged with the girls either. My mother’s alcoholism had gotten so bad that I didn’t want to bring friends home. Eventually, I had no friends to invite. I became more alienated and solitary. I had been moving a lot too, and I had to start over at different schools, which compounded my problems.

By the time I was 14, I was severely depressed and had given up: I stopped going to school; I stopped going outside. I just stayed in my room, avoiding my mother, playing video games, getting lost in my favorite music, and surfing the internet.

Something else was happening: I became attracted to girls. I had never had a positive association with the term “lesbian” or the idea that two girls could be in a relationship. This made me wonder if there was something inherently wrong with me. Around this time, out of the blue, my mother asked if I wanted to be a boy, something that hadn’t even crossed my mind. I then found some websites about females transitioning to male. Shortly after, I moved in with my father and his then-partner. She asked me the same question my mother had. I told her that I thought I was a boy and that I wanted to become one. 

As I look back, I see how everything led me to conclude it would be best if I stopped becoming a woman. My thinking was that, if I took hormones, I’d grow taller and wouldn’t look much different from biological men.

 When she went to the clinic that she took to court she was sure she wanted to be a boy:

It was the kind of brash assertion that’s typical of teenagers. What was really going on was that I was a girl insecure in my body who had experienced parental abandonment, felt alienated from my peers, suffered from anxiety and depression, and struggled with my sexual orientation.

After a series of superficial conversations with social workers, I was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, I was receiving testosterone shots. When 20, I had a double mastectomy. By then, I appeared to have a more masculine build, as well as a man’s voice, a man’s beard, and a man’s name: Quincy, after Quincy Jones.

But the further my transition went, the more I realized that I wasn’t a man, and never would be. We are told these days that when someone presents with gender dysphoria, this reflects a person’s “real” or “true” self, that the desire to change genders is set. But this was not the case for me. As I matured, I recognized that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause.

Five years after beginning my medical transition to becoming male, I began the process of detransitioning. A lot of trans men talk about how you can’t cry with a high dose of testosterone in your body, and this affected me too: I couldn’t release my emotions. One of the first signs that I was becoming Keira again was that—thankfully, at last—I was able to cry. And I had a lot to cry about. 

The consequences of what happened to me have been profound: possible infertility, loss of my breasts and inability to breastfeed, atrophied genitals, a permanently changed voice, facial hair. When I was seen at the Tavistock clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body.

But it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery. [My emphasis - BS] 

And that is why Kiera took the clinic to court - and won, with the judges ruling that children under the age of 16 considering gender reassignment are unlikely to be mature enough to give informed consent to be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs. In response to a higher court last week overturning that ruling because it foresaw a complicated arrangement for establishing protection for young people:

Bell said she planned to seek leave to appeal to the supreme court, adding: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. There is more to be done. It is a fantasy and deeply concerning that any doctor could believe a 10-year-old could consent to the loss of their fertility.”

The parent, author and columnist, Rod Dreher, comments:

Parents need to wake up, and wake up fast. There is an entire world of activists and allies devoted to convincing your child that he or she is something other than what they are, in terms of sex and gender. They are constantly trying to undermine your kid. You probably have no idea what it’s like. 

You might recall me telling you about meeting a Catholic father in Slovenia this summer, a man whose 12-year-old daughter is locked in a profound depression because some older teens from the US that she met online convinced her that she has to choose her gender identity quickly, before puberty really sets in. 

The girl is obsessed with this idea, doesn’t want to go to school, is struggling with eating, and so forth. This family is sitting in Slovenia, but the Internet made it possible for these ghouls in Oregon to colonize the child’s mind.

The message that comes through forcefully from all this is that parents must be constantly talking to their children about this topic because it is running hot on the platforms where young people congregate, and - don't forget - in many classrooms, too. Parents have to work hard to counter those two influences.

 Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Abortion 'rights': Know well what we are killing!

Are we a science-based society? Photo by Pavel Danilyuk from Pexels

By the late 1800s it was the American Medical Association that led the charge against abortion, based on the scientific evidence about the human qualities of the child in the womb. 

It is important to recognize that in all the debates about foetal development over the centuries since the beginning of the Christian era all reputable leaders and theologians in the history of the Church have always taught that abortion is a form of homicide and a serious sin. It was obvious that intercourse gave rise to the new human person and so it was clear that the unborn child's human dignity had to be acknowledged. Along with fostering respect for women, Christians transformed pagan society by emphasising the dignity of children, unborn or already born.

That human life begins at conception is not a matter of faith or doctrinal definition but of the evidence of our senses and science.

The Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion" has this to say on the scientific aspects:

From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with [their] own growth. [They] would never be made human if [they] were not human already.”

To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man [or woman], this individual-man[/woman] with [their] characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act.

The Church's 1987 "Instruction on respect for human life in its origins" titled Donum vitae expands and makes a more explicit statement on when the spiritual soul combines with the material body to become one entity the demand recognition if its dignity. It states:

This teaching [of the 1974 document] remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization, the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in [their] bodily and spiritual totality.

The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and, therefore, from that same moment [their] rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. [Source]

The Church teaches that it is because scientific evidence supports the reasoned conclusion that a human individual with a personal presence is present at or immediately after conception that each human individual should be treated as a person from the first moment of existence. 

This is why Catholics are so strong in their opposition to abortion. It's not because the Church has made a doctrinal declaration independent of whatever scientific information is available on the matter, but rather, it is pointing to the scientific reality and telling its members and all people of goodwill: "Do what the facts decree." 

This is one area among many where Catholics uphold the findings of science, whereas "progressives" deny science or blatantly ignore it on their pursuit of a self-centered "right" necessitated by sexual promiscuity ("Self-indulgence up to the very limit of hygiene and economics" - Huxley's Brave New World).

The self-absorption of so many in society is evident from a member of the up-and-coming elite, the valedictorian at her Dallas high school's graduation: 

I have dreams and hopes and ambition. Every girl graduating today does. We have spent our entire lives working towards our future, and without our input and without our consent, our control over that future has been stripped away from us,

I am terrified that if my contraceptives fail, I am terrified that if I am raped, then my hopes and aspirations and dreams and efforts for my future will no longer matter.

I hope that you can feel how gut-wrenching that is, I hope that you can feel how dehumanizing it is, to have the autonomy over your own body taken from you.

There is not much room in that perspective for the needs of a young being inside the woman with no other protection than their mother - and remotely, society and its moral strictures and laws.

On the other hand, we get a clear idea of what we are talking about with regards abortion by considering the case of Richard Hutchinson's survival after being born four months before due date. The baby had a gestational age of  21 weeks and two days, recognised by Guinness as the world's most premature baby to survive. Meanwhile, the survival rate of babies born early continues to climb. 

Many who consider themselves "progressive" promote abortions in the second trimester, (which covers Richard Hutchinson's timeframe)  and even till late in the third trimester (see here). Polling found that 23 percent of Americans say abortion in general should be legal in all cases, while 33 percent say it should be legal in most cases. 

These figures point to a toxic society, where the belief exists that it is an abuse of personal "rights" if consequences of unrestrained behaviours rebound on the actors. Fortunately it's only a minority who hold it, but the belief is certainly abroad that it is a woman’s right to end the life of her fetus at any stage of a pregnancy.

One reason for the confusion among many women is their acceptance of the slogan that, as one 2015 magazine column argued, "Gender Equality Is Not Possible Without Abortion". Absurdly, the column rails at the reality of sexual differences, but the reasons for abortion presented highlight the fact that women's struggle needs to be mounted, not against innocent life, rather within the economic and social spheres so that equal pay is universal, where recognition is given comprehensively to the needs of both parents to allow a reasonable work-life balance, that there is better healthcare and much more that would reduce the burden of childcare. 

This is the direction in which the "women's rights" brigade should be driving its campaigns. As has been pointed out by other writers, it's far easier for political parties to push for a raft of cultural "reforms" than it is to tackle the power bloc that is the corporate sector in order to recover, by way of better pay and benefits, the investment society has made and that companies have reaped, leading to bumper profits and outlandish executive pay.

Another serious matter here is that there is no reason for abortion in cases of foetal abnormality, writes Alexandra DeSanctis in The Atlantic. She states:

To argue for abortion on the grounds of fetal abnormality amounts to defending the selective killing of human beings with disabilities or terminal illnesses; whether these abortions stem from callousness or misplaced compassion makes little difference to the life at stake.

DeSanctis cites a physician's evidence about the lack of need to abort late term babies:

In cases of third-trimester abortion for “fetal viability” exceptions, meanwhile, it should be obvious that no fetal deformity or disease is cured by killing the afflicted unborn child. Consider this testimony from Omar Hamada: “I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.”

DeSanctis faces off against the "progressives" and the money-makers like Planned Parenthood whose abortion centers sell babies' parts to pharmaceutical companies and researchers:

This is why the abortion-rights movement has long relied upon euphemisms to obscure the unpleasant truth about the right they advocate. Phrases like women’s rights, the right to choose, and reproductive freedom dominate their advocacy, along with dismissive jargon like clumps of cells.

The key point in this horrible, horrible affair is that at every stage of pregnancy, abortion is the taking of a human life. 

Men realise this, too, but are often sidelined:

BBC News delved into the issue in a 2019 investigative piece, in which reporters spoke with men who desire a larger say in whether or not their partners could abort their preborn children. As one post-abortive man told the news outlet, "I tried everything, I offered to marry her, to take the baby myself, or to offer it up for adoption.” Another spoke of deep-seated shame, depression, and regret, explaining: “Men are meant to be protectors, so there is a sense of failure—failing to protect the mother and the unborn child, failing to be responsible.”

A national [US] web-based study of post-abortive men supports the idea that abortion is traumatizing, reporting that “4 out of 10 men experienced chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms . . . 88 percent feeling grief and sadness, 82 percent guilt, 77 percent anger, 64 percent anxiety, 68 percent isolation, 31 percent helplessness, 40 percent sexual problems.” A director at the Institute for Pregnancy Loss noted the study and called a woman’s right to abort despite her partner’s unwillingness, “unequal protection under the law”.  

Some pro-life men have experienced abortions of their own and joined the anti-abortion movement after coming to terms with the psychological damage done to them. One such man shared his story with a pro-life organization, explaining that his lightbulb moment came years later:

“I've become far more enlightened on the procedure, realizing there's an all-too-real human dimension to the process. Long after the abortion was carried out, the emotional fallout continues, at least for me. I still occasionally have sleepless nights, thinking about what we did and why. . . . Who was the child we never knew? Would he have been my son? What would he or she be like today, at 20 years of age? How would I justify either of my teenage daughters having never been given the chance to be the remarkable young ladies they've become?"

Other insights by the article writer are that:

Despite popular insistence that abortion is a vital tenet of gender equality, the reality is far more complicated, as both men and women consider the societal implications of giving a woman the right to “opt-out” of pregnancy. 

The pro-life perspective stands out in comparison to the others, which focus largely on how to even the playing field between men and women to achieve reproductive equity. Rather than eschew responsibility for pregnancies, anti-abortion groups argue that both men and women are best served by accepting full responsibility for any life created during sexual intercourse. This worldview examines humanity not from a lens of equity but from one of personal responsibility and respect for the existence of human life.

Abortion is, as we have seen, the killing of a human being. The death of the child is the result of a decision to opt out of parenthood. Recognising that there are cases of the mother's severe hardship or health difficulties that call for a heroism beyond most people in carrying a baby to term, the fact remains that the decision to abort is often a matter of avoiding disruption to one's lifestyle (I'm thinking that this applies to both the mother and father), or an escape from embarrassment. Humans are better than this!

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.  

All you need for achieving meaning in life

Madonna in the "Material Girl" video

The years since Madonna's 1984-5 hit "Material Girl" have seen a compounding of the superficial and manipulative mentality that she portrayed in the song and video: "I'm a material girl 'cause everybody's living in a material world". Though trinkets and sparkle might not be what appeals today, there remains a focus on the "right" clothes, appearance, possessions and behaviours, even politically correct beliefs, as the source of happiness. 

But if the focus today is on what we can see and touch and taste, there is also the unsettling feeling that the foundations are cracking with regard the global culture's central principle of grabbing whatever each of us can of the world while we can. In other words, there are troubling doubts that possessions, power, and fame are where happiness lies.

That unsettling feeling is prominent within the populations of the developed world, though the glitz of the material world enthralls many who are climbing out of poverty. The negative results include alienation from the family, community groups and society as a whole, leading to mental illness and suicide.

Some mental health facts:

💢 In 2019, there were an estimated 51.5 million adults aged 18 or older in the United States with some kind of mental illness. This number represented 20.6% of all U.S. adults.

💢 The prevalence of mental illness was higher among females (24.5%) than males (16.3%).

💢 Young adults aged 18-25 years had the highest prevalence of any mental illness (29.4%) compared to adults aged 26-49 years (25.0%) and aged 50 and older (14.1%).

💢 Young adults aged 18-25 years had the highest prevalence of serious mental illness (8.6%) compared to adults aged 26-49 years (6.8%) and aged 50 and older (2.9%).

The Mental Health America organisation states that youth mental health is worsening, with 9.7% of youth in the U.S. having severe major depression, compared to 9.2% in the previous dataset.  Even before Covid-19, the prevalence of mental illness among adults was increasing. In 2017-2018, 19% of adults experienced a mental illness, an increase of 1.5 million people over the previous dataset.

Furthermore, suicidal ideation among adults is increasing. The percentage of adults in the U.S. who are experiencing serious thoughts of suicide increased 0.15% from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 – an additional 460,000 people from the previous dataset. 

Therefore, it's worth exploring why alienation and depression and meaninglessness take hold of so many in any society. 

One component is the "Is this all?" factor. That European society was moving ever more quickly to a this-world mindset was clear to Aldous Huxley when he wrote Brave New World in 1931. In his futuristic novel where everyone is conditioned, even in the test tube, Huxley has the Europe controller trying to prevent his population from independently looking at the purpose of their existence. He worries that a new research paper on that topic...

...might make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good and take to believing, instead, that the goal [of life] was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the maintenance of well-being, but some intensification and refining of consciousness, some enlargement of knowledge.

Concern over the lack of a transcendental perspective has continued from Huxley to John Harris, a Guardian columnist, who has written a piece titled, "How do faithless people like me make sense of this past year of Covid?" He was writing after a year of lockdown as a person without a belief in God - "the sudden fear of serious illness and death, and the sense of all of it being wholly random and senseless":

Like millions of other faithless people, I have not even the flimsiest of narratives to project on to what has happened, nor any real vocabulary with which to talk about the profundities of life and death. Beyond a handful of close friends and colleagues and my immediate family, there has been no community of like minds with whom I have talked about how I am feeling or ritualistically marked the passing of all these grinding weeks and months. 

Even now, with restrictions soon to be lifted, the chance of any shared reflection on the last year’s events still seems slim. Secularised societies do not really work like that. And Britain is a perfect example, as proved by a prospect that somehow feels both exciting and absurd: a return to shops, pub gardens and “normality”, and people being encouraged to make merry as if nothing has happened. 

Harris seeks to make sense of the pandemic's sickness and death, and to grow from the experience - but "secularised societies do not really work like that." No wonder depression sets in. He envies those who have faith:

In the first phase of the pandemic, there were clear signs that a lot of us needed much more. Across 95 countries, Googling the word “prayer” increased by 50%, surpassing the level associated with Christmas and Ramadan. In April 2020, a service led by the Archbishop of Canterbury from his kitchen table drew 5 million viewers, described by the Church of England as the largest congregation in its history.

And since then, as churches, mosques, synagogues and temples have been at the heart of some communities’ Covid experiences, the symbols and rituals of religion have made very visible comebacks. They were seen again in last week’s doorstep vigil, complete with candles and massed silence, for the people lost to Covid.

He tells how English and Continental societies coped with the Black Death. The people had Church supported guilds and fraternal groups to help each other, and  “did not cease thinking in terms of community and rebirth”.

Today, a mixture of individualism and collective denial leaves many of us without the ideas or language to conceive of Covid like that. And besides, even if we wanted, once rules allow us to try and make shared sense of our recent experiences in the company of others, where would we do it? “When it comes to mortality, we have relatively few social institutions that allow us to talk about it, and see each other through it,” said John Sabapathy, a medieval historian at University College London.

Through decades of secularisation, cheered on by irreligious liberals, not nearly enough thought was ever given to what might take on the social roles of a church. 

That's what Harris's column goes on to discuss - where people can come together to avoid loneliness and alienation and depression. 

But this post is not intended to promote Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, where people "use" religion to buoy their own ego or a well-being still steeped in individualism. The point here is how important God is to the life of any and every human, that absolute truth can be found with God, that we know through personal experience that God loves each one of us.

A religious, specifically a Catholic narrative about what we are here on earth for, about the purpose of life with all its challenges, is given in this reflection on the August 1 Bible readings at Mass:

Is your life aimless?  Do you feel life is worth living?  Or would you prefer to die not because there is a better life in the next world but simply because this life with all its struggles, challenges, sufferings or even pleasures is meaningless?  The scripture readings today invite us to reflect deeper on how we are living our life.  Most of us just drift through life, existing but not living fully.

When we do that, we are no better than animals, eating, sleeping, enjoying and working.  We do not have a purpose, a goal, an orientation.  Even if we do have, does it really bring us true happiness or just an illusory and transitory contentment?  St Paul urged the Christians in Ephesus, “I want to urge you in the name of the Lord, not to go on living the aimless kind of life that pagans live.”

What would you consider to be an aimless life?  An aimless life is one that thrives on pleasure and physical fulfilment only.  Many of us are contented with this level of living.  All we seek in life is to provide pleasure to the body.  Our primary concern is food, comfort and excitement.  We are sensual, materialistic and consumeristic.  That was the way the Israelites behaved in the first reading. 

At any rate, very few are contented with what they have, even the richest man on earth.  We want more and more.  We are never contented, for the moment we have it, we get bored, and to keep us going, we find new objectives and new hobbies to entertain ourselves.

Nevertheless, it is not surprising how we respond to physical and material needs.   Even the crowd that followed Jesus in the gospel sought for food and pleasure as well.  They were not interested in Jesus except what He could do for them in terms of physical and material security.  But they were not truthful to themselves and their real intention of seeking Jesus.  

They just wanted to make use of Jesus for their temporal needs in life.  They did not look further than just material satisfaction and physical liberation from the Romans.

This is where Jesus is inviting us to seek something more than mere material and physical needs.  Whilst they are essential for us to live, they cannot give us life, for as St Paul would say, “the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”  (Rom 14:17) Jesus said to the people, “Do not work for food that cannot last, but work for food that endures to eternal life, the kind of food the Son of Man is offering you, for on him the Father, God himself, has set his seal.”  

One of the reasons why many successful and rich people find life empty and meaningless in spite of their wealth and fame, is simply because once our body is satisfied, our spirit seeks something more.  This itself is a clear proof that we are not just constituted of matter, but we have a soul, since nothing on this earth that is material can satisfy us and even if it does, it is only temporary.  In fact, when we are rich and well to do, when our comforts are met, we find ourselves living in a vacuum.  The soul is thirsting for something which the body cannot satisfy.

So what is it that causes us to feel empty, especially when we are successful, have a reasonably comfortable life, a good career, good health and have sufficient money to live on? Did the people stop complaining after God gave them meat and bread to their hearts content?  The truth is that Israel’s complaints against God never ended.  They were always greedy and the word “enough” did not exist in their vocabulary, like ours as well. They failed the test that God set for them, which was to trust Him and His divine providence.  

So what is causing us to feel empty is to think that if we have plenty of money, our life would be fulfilled and we will have no more suffering or worries or fears in life.  If we go by all the TV serials, the rich often live very complicated lives simply because when we are wealthy, we are not too sure who our real friends are.

Saint Augustine writes in his Confessions, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You."

Happiness and fulfilment can come only when we have meaning and purpose.  This can only be found in God and then expressed in cultivating wholesome relationships and doing works of charity.  If our meaning and purpose is found in this life, then it cannot sustain us for long.  If we think that getting an academic degree can fulfil us, then the moment we attain it, life has no longer any meaning.  Then we will always be creating meaning for ourselves by setting one goal after another.

 But no matter what achievements we arrive at, when we actually arrive, it becomes an anti-climax.  This is why meaning and purpose can only be found in God, for we can never fully fathom God since God is in us and above all.  As the Lord told the Samaritan woman who was also seeking the fulness of life, that she must search for the living water instead.  (Jn 4:10-15) Only God can quench the thirst in us.

The consequence of our union with the Lord is to belong to His body, the Church, which means also that we are in fellowship with His people, living together as one, caring and supporting each other in faith and love.  And indeed, it is when we are in good relationship with God and with our fellowmen, that we find meaning.

To receive this Bread of Life, we only need to believe in Him.  This is the work that is required of us, not our good works or any other works.  When they asked the Lord, “What must we do if we are to do the works that God wants?’ Jesus gave them this answer, ‘This is working for God: you must believe in the one He has sent.'”  In other words, faith in Jesus is to allow His Spirit to work in and through us.  We do good only because His Spirit inspires us and empowers us to do so. 

Faith in Jesus is what gives us fulfilment, life, love and joy.  Faith in Jesus means that we will live a life of love and self-giving to our brothers and sisters in the whole world. This is what St Paul said, “You must give up your old way of life; you must put aside your old self, which gets corrupted by following illusory desires. Your mind must be renewed by a spiritual revolution so that you can put on the new self that has been created in God’s way, in the goodness and holiness of the truth.”

 As a sidebar, I want to offer this observation by the same pastor, namely the Catholic Archbishop of Singapore, William Goh:

Why do some of us go through life without a sense of direction?  We just drift through life, trying to keep ourselves alive with some pleasures and luxuries in life.  But our life is meaningless.  We have no real purpose for our existence.  We work to keep ourselves alive and to make a living.  We might even appear to be active doing many things but without direction and coherence.  At the end of the day, we will be burnt-out with all sorts of activities, but achieve nothing substantial.

The Christian is different and distinguishes himself or herself from how worldly people live, with their selfish and self-centred values, contrary to the gospel of humility, dying to self, compassion, forgiveness and humble service.  This is the real challenge of being a Christian today, to have the courage to be identified as one.  What the world wants is for us to be identified with them.   The world wants us to absorb their worldly values so that we will not be a reproach to their self-centred lifestyle or be a conscience to society.

Today, the Christian message of freedom, marriage, sexuality, sanctity of life is being distorted, not just by unbelievers but even by false prophets from within our Church who want to please the world.

Therefore, the Christian has a sense of direction, an awareness of the need to be countercultural, a purpose in life that goes beyond the mundane, and seeks to pass on the good news that we can center our lives on a personal God, who is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite and loving.  

In conclusion, to come back to John Harris's column, here is a response from Richard Harries, a peer in Britain's Parliament, the House of Lords:   

It would indeed be good, as John Harris argues, to have more public spaces for communal activities, but that does not get to the heart of the issue. Those who meet in synagogues, churches, mosques, temples and gurdwaras all believe they have some insight into a reality not of their making – one which makes sense of life and gives hope even in times of despair. Great though it is to come together on the basis of a shared interest in football, motherhood, the local community or chess, this can be no real substitute for what religious people believe religion has to offer.

 Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

United Nations: Human family faces an urgent choice!

 Crisis after crisis - a shared test for humanity, says Antonio Guterres. UN photo (cropped) 

The world is heading in the wrong direction and without change a breakdown in social order can be expected and a future of perpetual crisis, the head of the United Nations Antonio Guterres states in a report on the many global problems that are coming together to produce a "do or die" moment for human life on this planet.

His study,  Our Common Agenda, contains a grim list of stress points that highlight how the fabric of international well-being is unlikely to hold unless a combined effort is undertaken without delay.

However, the report, with its frightening outlook for humankind, seems to have been lost in a weekend where the news cycle was focused largely on remembering the 9/11 attack and sports events. That's a shame because its contents are compelling reminders of how the priorities of leading countries have created a furnace that is set to consume all that makes life on this planet possible.  

The introduction lays out our predicament:

We are at an inflection point in history. The Covid-19 pandemic has served as a wake-up call and with the climate crisis now looming, the world is experiencing its biggest shared test since the Second World War.

Humanity faces a stark and urgent choice: breakdown or breakthrough. The choices we make — or fail to make — today could result in further breakdown and a future of perpetual crises, or a breakthrough to a better, more sustainable, peaceful future for our people and planet. 

The United Nations was created after World War Two to manage conflicts between nation states. Today, it increasingly confronts issues across countries such as disease, poverty, migration, or climate change.

Our Common Agenda argues that: 

The coronavirus disease (Covid-19) is upending our world, threatening our health, destroying economies and livelihoods and deepening poverty and inequalities.

Conflicts continue to rage and worsen.

The disastrous effects of a changing climate – famine, floods, fires and extreme heat – threaten our very existence.

For millions of people around the world, poverty, discrimination, violence and exclusion are denying them their rights to the basic necessities of life: health, safety, a vaccination against disease, clean water to drink, a plate of food or a seat in a classroom.

Increasingly, people are turning their backs on the values of trust and solidarity in one another – the very values we need to rebuild our world and secure a better, more sustainable future for our people and our planet.

Humanity’s welfare – and indeed, humanity’s very future – depend on solidarity and working together as a global family to achieve common goals. 

The report's information on living conditions came from all around the world:

One message rang through loud and clear: the choices we make, or fail to make, today could result in further breakdown, or a breakthrough to a greener, better, safer future.

The choice is ours to make; but we will not have this chance again.  

 To look at the impact of the crises as analysed in the report:

The coronavirus disease pandemic has been a challenge like no other since the Second World War, revealing our shared vulnerability and interconnectedness. It has exposed human rights concerns and exacerbated deep fragilities and inequalities in our societies. It has amplified disenchantment with institutions and political leadership as the virus has lingered. We have also seen many examples of vaccine nationalism.

Let there be no illusion: Covid-19 may pale in comparison to future challenges if we do not learn from failures that have cost lives and livelihoods.

 What awaits us in the scenario of breakdown and perpetual crisis without concerted healthcare action:

• Covid-19 is endemic, constantly mutating

• Richer countries hoard vaccines, no plan for equitable distribution

• Health systems are overwhelmed

• No preparedness for future pandemics

• Some countries are poorer in 2030 than before the pandemic hit

 The scenario of breakdown and perpetual crisis without concerted environmental action:

• Owing to unchanged emission levels from human activity, global warming of 2°C will be exceeded during the twenty-first century

• Heatwaves, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones and other extremes are unprecedented in magnitude, frequency and timing, and occur in regions that have never been affected before

• The Arctic is ice free in the summer; most permafrost is lost and extreme sea levels occur every year

• One million species are on the verge of extinction, with irreversible biodiversity loss

• More than 1 billion people live with heat that is so extreme that it threatens their lives

 The scenario of breakdown and perpetual crisis without action to reverse destabilizing inequalities:

• Continuous erosion of human rights

• Growing poverty, and massive loss of jobs and income

• Public goods like education and social protection systems are underfunded

• Protests spread across borders, often met with violent repression

• Technology fuels division

• New types of warfare invented faster than new ways of making peace

The report states: 

Our best projections show that a stark choice confronts us: to continue with business as usual and risk significant breakdown and perpetual crisis, or to make concerted efforts to break through and achieve an international system that delivers for people and the planet. These omens must not be ignored, nor these opportunities squandered.  

Before going to the report's positive scenario, one element that needs to be factored in is that of solidarity: 

Everything proposed in this report depends on a deepening of solidarity. Solidarity is not charity; in an interconnected world, it is common sense. It is the principle of working together, recognizing that we are bound to each other and that no community or country can solve its challenges alone. 

It is about our shared responsibilities to and for each other, taking account of our common humanity and each person’s dignity, our diversity and our varying levels of capacity and need. The importance of solidarity has been thrown into sharp relief by Covid-19 and the race against variants, even for countries that are well advanced with vaccination campaigns.

No one is safe [from the virus] until everyone is safe. The same is true of our biodiversity, without which none of us can survive, and for actions to address the climate crisis. In the absence of solidarity, we have arrived at a critical paradox: international cooperation is more needed than ever but also harder to achieve.

Through a deeper commitment to solidarity, at the national level, between generations and in the multilateral system, we can avoid the breakdown scenario and, instead, break through towards a more positive future.

Now for the scenario of breakthrough and the prospect of a greener, safer better future. First, that of a sustainable recovery from our present crises:

 • Vaccines shared widely and equitably

• Capacity to produce vaccines for future pandemics within 100 days and to distribute them globally within a year

• People in crisis and conflict settings have a bridge to better lives

• Revised international debt architecture

• Business incentives are reshaped to support global public goods

• Progress to address illicit financial flows, tax avoidance and climate finance

• Financial and economic systems support more sustainable, resilient and inclusive patterns of growth

Second, the positive outlook for healthy people and planet based on solidarity:

 • Global temperature rise is limited to 1.5°C

• All countries and sectors decarbonize by 2050

• Support provided to countries heavily affected by climate emergencies

• Just transitions to a new labour ecosystem are ensured

• A functioning ecosystem is preserved for succeeding generations

• Communities are equipped to adapt and be resilient to climate change impacts

Finally, with trust and protection the scenario looks like this:

 • Strong commitment to the universality and indivisibility of human rights

• Universal social protection floors, including universal health coverage

• Universal digital connectivity

• Quality education, skills enhancement and lifelong learning

• Progress on addressing gender, racial, economic and other inequalities

• Equal partnership between institutions and the people they serve and among and within communities to strengthen social cohesion

Which brings us back to solidarity, specifically the search for the common good by way of a social contract:

A strong social contract anchored in human rights at the national level is the necessary foundation for us to work together. It may not be written down in any single document, but the social contract has profound consequences for people, underpinning their rights and obligations and shaping their life chances. It is also vital for international cooperation, since bonds across countries do not work when bonds within them are broken.

The inequality, mistrust and intolerance that we are seeing in many countries and regions, heightened by the devastating impact of the pandemic, suggest that the time has come to renew the social contract for a new era in which individuals, States and other actors work in partnership to build trust, increase participation and inclusion and redefine human progress.

The deepening of solidarity at the national level must be matched by a new commitment to young people and future generations, to whom the opening words of the Charter of the United Nations make a solemn promise. Strengthened solidarity is long overdue with the existing generation of young people, who feel that our political, social and economic systems ignore their present and sacrifice their future.

We must take steps to deliver  better education and jobs for them and to give them a greater voice in designing their own futures. We must also find ways to systematically consider the interests of the 10.9 billion people who are expected to be born this century, predominantly in Africa and Asia: we will achieve a breakthrough only if we think and act together on their behalf for the long term.

To support solidarity within societies and between generations, we also need a new deal at the global level. The purpose of international cooperation in the twenty-first century is to achieve a set of vital common goals on which our welfare, and indeed survival, as a human race depend. Notably, we need to improve the protection of the global commons and the provision of a broader set of global public goods, those issues that benefit humanity as a whole and that cannot be managed by any one State or actor alone.

Just as the founders of the United Nations came together determined to save succeeding generations from war, we must now come together to save succeeding generations from war, climate change, pandemics, hunger, poverty, injustice and a host of risks that we may not yet foresee entirely. This is Our Common Agenda. 

As part of the effort to rebuild trust among particpants in each society, the Common Agenda urges tax reform locally and internationally:

A reformed international tax system is needed to respond to the realities of growing cross-border trade and investment and an increasingly digitalized economy while also addressing existing shortcomings in fair and effective taxation of businesses and reducing harmful tax competition.

The G20 has agreed on a new international tax architecture that addresses the tax challenges arising from globalization and digitalization and introduces a global minimum tax for corporations, with a blueprint in place for broader implementation under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The internet:

The internet has altered our societies as profoundly as the printing press did, requiring a deep reimagining of the ethics and mindsets with which we approach knowledge, communication and cohesion. Along with the potential for more accessible information and rapid communication and consultation, the digital age, particularly social media, has also heightened fragmentation and “echo chambers” [listening to only like-minded views]. Objectivity, or even the idea that people can aspire to ascertain the best available truth, has come increasingly into question. 

 Some facts and figures relating to the need for investment in social protection, meaning public welfare:

• The wealth of billionaires increased by over US$3.9 trillion between March and December 2020, while 4 billion people are still without any form of basic social protection.

• 92 per cent of African women are in the informal economy. This keeps them outside of social security systems.

• A total of $78 billion would be needed for low-income countries to establish social protection floors, including health care, covering their combined population of 711 million people.

The rationale for social protection is given here:

Social protection systems have demonstrated their value during the COVID-19 pandemic, saving lives and backstopping economies at large. Without the surge in State-provided social protection, economic damage could have been far worse. This is also the case for previous crises. We must not lose this momentum. A new era for social protection systems would be a foundation for peaceful societies and other measures to leave no one behind and eradicate extreme poverty.

I urge States to accelerate steps to achieve universal social protection coverage, including for the remaining 4 billion people currently unprotected, in line with target 1.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals. While the types and modalities of coverage may vary, at a minimum this means access to health care for all and basic income security for children, those unable to work and older persons.

Then there is work:

Decent work opportunities for all are also needed for shared prosperity. With the nature and types of work transforming rapidly, this requires a floor of rights and protections for all workers, irrespective of their employment arrangements, as laid out in the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work. Workers should not shoulder all the risks when it comes to their income, their hours of work and how they cope if they are ill or unemployed.

Investment in sectors with the greatest potential for creating more and better jobs, such as the green, care and digital economies, is key and can be brought about through major public investment, along with incentive structures for long-term business investments consistent with human development and well-being.

The inadequacy of using gross domestic product to measure a nation's development success is expressed forcefully:

We know that GDP fails to account for human well-being, planetary sustainability and non-market services and care, or to consider the distributional dimensions of economic activity. Absurdly, GDP rises when there is overfishing, cutting of forests or burning of fossil fuels. We are destroying nature, but we count it as an increase in wealth. Such discussions have been ongoing for decades. It is time to collectively commit to complementary measurements. Without that fundamental shift, the targets that we have fixed in relation to biodiversity, pollution and climate change will not be achievable. 

"Women's work" is given due attention:

In rethinking GDP, we must also find ways to validate the care and informal economy. Specifically, most of the care work around the world is unpaid and done by women and girls, perpetuating economic inequality between genders. COVID-19 also had deeply gendered economic and job impacts that highlighted and exacerbated the trillions of dollars that are lost owing to billions of hours of unpaid care work performed every year.

Rethinking the care economy means valuing unpaid care work in economic models but also investing in quality paid care as part of essential public services and social protection arrangements, including by improved pay and working conditions (target 5.4 of the Sustainable Development Goals). More broadly, we also need to find new ways to account for and value the vast informal economy.

More facts and figures, this time relating to the transition to a green economy:

• Air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels, chemicals and other pollutants is responsible for the death of 7 million people every year, costing around $5 trillion annually.

 • Shifting to a green economy could yield a direct economic gain of US$26 trillion through 2030 compared with business-as-usual and create over 65 million new low-carbon jobs.

The immediate task:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us in August 2021 that we are at imminent risk of hitting the dangerous threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius in the near term. Every fraction of a degree represents lost lives, livelihoods, assets, species and ecosystems. We should be dramatically reducing emissions each year, towards a 45 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050, as made clear by the Panel, yet temperatures continue to rise. 

We should be shoring up our populations, infrastructure, economies and societies to be resilient to climate change, yet adaptation and resilience continue to be seriously underfunded.

Climate Breakdown or Breakthrough 

Climate change - Transforming food systems:

• Sustainable food systems and strong forest protection could generate over $2 trillion per year of economic benefits, create millions of jobs and improve food security, while supporting solutions to climate change.

In conclusion, the "Moving Forward" section points to the 12 elements that have guided this report:

This vision builds on and responds to the declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, in which Member States made 12 critical commitments:

• to leave no one behind; 

• to protect our planet;

• to promote peace and prevent conflict;

• to abide by international law and ensure justice;

• to place women and girls at the centre;

• to build trust;

• to improve digital cooperation;

• to upgrade the United Nations;

• to ensure sustainable financing;

• to boost partnerships;

• to listen to and work with youth; and

• to be prepared for future crises.   

In the past, newspapers would have had the social responsibility - and the capacity - to do what I have done here, to mine an important international document in order to allow readers to develop their citizenship skills by becoming aware of what international leaders are saying about the needs of Planet Earth, and the care of the human family. I hope you found this material as informative as I did. 

Ω Here is the best news report I could find in a check of all the main news sources relating to this significant document. 

Ω The thrust of  Our Common Agenda is contained in the 2015 letter to the world of Pope Francis, Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home. See here.

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Yes, we do have a soul: What this means.

In the course of writing my previous post on the inability of neuroscientists to pinpoint where in the brain or its processes the human's intellectual and decision-making capabilities arise, it struck me that many people are likely to be unfamiliar with the concept of the soul, perhaps only knowing of  the term from its use in "soul music" or the saying, "It's got no soul!" (as in Gerry Rafferty's "Baker Street").

Fundamentally, the soul is of central importance in understanding the human person because it endows the person with the dignity that we find in declarations of human rights and, generally, in claims that everyone must be treated equally and justly. 

The only way the human person can claim a dignity above the rest of the natural world, and an equality among peers, is through the mutual acknowledgement that each person has a transcendent character,  a quality that is beyond the material. This is often referred to as the brain-mind mystery, as discussed in that previous post.

In other words, if the person is held to be only of a material nature, then there is no solid base for the human to claim a dignity above any other element of the natural world, deflating any likelihood of  successfully creating a system of moral behaviour that would be upheld in society. 

We can see this breakdown of the moral order in Western countries with the secularization of the culture. This has led to the Godless principle that there are no boundaries on human behaviour. as expressed by US Supreme Court judge Anthony Kennedy in 1992: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." 

Neuroscientists, as we saw in my previous post, recognise that their research has shown the limitations of attempts to discover in the brain's functions the source of human consciousness, or of the power of reasoning, or of the independence of the will, which are what Catholics refer to as the spiritual faculties of the human person.

As well as making possible self-reflection, meaning our consciousness, the soul is where we exercise our intellect and free will, where we believe and love, sin, and yearn for goodness, beauty, truth, and for God.

What all of us are dealing with as we explore our human capabilities are features of human existence that have been puzzling people through all time. We have the ancients, then the Greeks and Romans, and the creators of Hinduism and Buddhism, and the varied array of animists over the millennia, who have laboured over the same matter, an awareness that the body is not all that we are. A typical example is the case of  the Dyaks and Sumatrans who, as anthropologists in what is now Indonesia found, bound various parts of the body with cords during sickness to prevent the escape of what animated the body. 

However, it is the Catholic doctrine of the soul that is most useful to examine because it enshrines the principles of ancient speculation, and is ready to receive and assimilate the fruits of modern research. 

First, this post will clarify what Catholics mean by the soul, and then it will provide some scientific insight into why there should be respect for its doctrine.

The human person is a single entity defined by material and spiritual components such that the spiritual soul is metaphysically the “form of the body” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 362-368).

This phrase is defined by the Church. It means that a human body can only exist as a holistic and functional reality in the cosmos through the spiritual soul. And by corollary, it means that the spiritual soul holds all the material powers of the body in integral unity as human and personal. 

It is also Catholic doctrine that body and soul do not share the same genesis because matter and spirit are not one common order of existence. This need not imply any opposition between matter and spirit. Both matter and spirit are ultimately from God’s creative hand. The body comes from the parents, but the soul is fused with the body to be the "holistic reality" spoken of above (CCC 382). Another way this is described is that the soul animates the body, so that we are an ensouled body (rather than an embodied soul). 

The soul has a natural aptitude and need for existence in the body. But it is not wholly immersed in matter, because its higher operations are intrinsically independent of the organism. This "rational soul"  is produced by special creation and is of a higher order than the "vegetative" and "sensitive" souls that are part of the different levels of the purely material world.

Therefore, the soul is that component of human nature that is fully integrated with the body as with the individual and personal centre of control and direction, namely the intellect and will. In this, the body, with its inherited instincts, is acknowledged as integral to our thinking and self-determination, but it is not the full picture.

One writer goes into greater detail:

Our brains no doubt work on the same patterns as other brains in nature, but the human quest for knowledge is not just bounded by the needs of survival. We indulge in pure speculation and seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Our minds delve far beyond the things we can reach directly with the physical senses. We reach out to the very boundaries of creation and beyond. This is both the wonder and the burden of being human.

We also yearn for more than just the satisfaction of bodily needs. The human will and creativity faculty are a further witness to our freedom from the environmental harmonics of animal urge and instinct. We actively shape and develop the environment itself based on our own insight into the structure and patterns of Nature. At our best we do this in harmony with the laws of creation, enhancing the world with our own creative developments and inventiveness. Tragically, we can also break the laws of our own well-being and perhaps even the natural harmony of the planet we live upon. We are not supposed to do this, of course, but the fact that we can do so still demonstrates the transcendent power of the human spirit. No purely material creature could break the material laws of directional control that shape and define its very essence.

All of this shows that we are not just creatures who are controlled and directed. We are creatures who exercise control and direction. That is to say, we are not just matter; we are mind as well. Our fairly constant and active consciousness of our physical environment furnishes the foundational experience of what mind and matter are.

The writer goes on, offering this interrogation of evolution:

If it is true that evolution produces more and more powerful brains as it progresses, and this requires more and more control from the environment to ensure its meaningful and balanced behaviour, then, somewhere along the line, things must reach a natural limit. Nature could produce a supreme brain that was still within its control, but if things were to develop one step beyond that, then it would indeed have created something that was out of control and could not be given a programme of life - an animal that had no place or meaning in Nature.

Such a creature would be un-natural by definition. So, in fact, such an event could never happen - at least not on its own. Everything in the universe, including our own brains, is built up on this principle of control and direction, and Nature cannot break its own fundamental law without the whole process of the universe being undermined and coming to grief.

And yet evidently something has given us power over the physical environment, power to work out the laws of nature themselves and control them for our own ends, power even to destroy Nature itself with our technology if we are foolish enough. It looks like the impossible has actually happened. How do we explain this?... 

This ‘new power’ cannot be something material, something which arises from the organisation of atoms and molecules and electrical energies of the universe... Therefore it can only come from one other source. It must come directly from God. The human body comes about from the seed and egg of parents in common with other animals, but the soul is created immediately by God’s loving command and wise, eternal will. Whenever a new human life is conceived the soul must also be there. This is because the formula or pattern that makes up the human body makes no sense and has no place in Nature without the [soul] to hold it together and give it a meaning and a purpose.

All the preceeding gives some insight into the Catholic, and largely Christian, doctrine of the soul. But it would be a sin of omission if I did not add some information about the work of Christians in conducting and analysing research in the realm of consciousness and its transcendental nature.

A good starting point for futher information is the 2015 book The Soul's Upward Yearning: Clues to Our Transcendent Nature from Experience and Reason. Here, the author, Robert Spitzer, examines the research being done that highlights the "transphysical soul" and the "possibility and plausibility of [our ] transcendent nature and destiny."

One quote given in Spitzer's text is from Sir John Eccles (died 1997), the Australian neurophysiologist who won the Nobel Prize for his research on brain synapses. He did a lot of research into how the soul could interact with the material brain.  In a 1990 text he expressed his dismay at the boundaries set by some scientists in what they would accept as to the brain's capabilities:

The materialist critics argue that insuperable difficulties are encountered by the hypothesis that immaterial mental events can act in any way on material structures such as neurons. Such as presumed action is alleged to be incompatible with the conservation laws of physics, in particular of the first law of thermodynamics. This objection would certainly be sustained by nineteenth century physicists, and by neuroscientists and philosophers who are still ideologically in the physics of the nineteenth century, not recognizing the revolution wrought by quantum physicists in the twentieth century.

So it is not the Christians who are backward, but those with heuristic platforms that they will not shift from. Spitzer, a Jesuit priest and scholar,  updates Eccles' view with an overview of more recent scientific contributions, including that a "whole new area of biophysics is developing around  [the use of quantum theory]: neuroquantology".  

In concluding this post, I turn to a summary of Spitzer's extensive analysis of evidence for the soul: 

Father Spitzer's work provides [...]traditional and contemporary evidence for God and the transphysical soul. It shows that we are transcendent beings with souls capable of surviving bodily death; that we are self-reflective beings able to strive toward perfect truth, love, goodness, and beauty; that we have the dignity of being created in the very image of God. If we underestimate these truths, we undevalue one another, underlive our lives, and underachieve our destiny.   

References:

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907-1912. Access here. 

Robert Spitzer, 2015, The Soul's Upward Yearning, Clues to Our Transcendent Nature from Experience and Reason, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Faith.org.uk, "Body and Soul - Renewing Catholic Orthodoxy", Editorial, FAITH Magazine, March - April 2008. England. Access here.

Stephen Beale, "What Are We? Body and Soul…and Spirit?", Catholic Exchange, Access here. 

Photo by Monstera from Pexels. (Altered)

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.