February 2015

Ebola!

At our January meeting, Dr. Jay Jacobson, MD, Professor Emeritus in Ethics, Medicine and Infectious Diseases gave us tools to talk about Ebola and other infections.

He started with definitions of words we would need to discuss infections: 1) state produced by the establishment of an infective agent in or on a suitable host 2), a disease caused by germs that enter the body.

The Ebola virus is less contagious (capable of being easily spread to others) or communicable (capable of being communicated) than air borne diseases such as influenza. Ebola is only spread by infected body fluids coming into contact with mucous membranes (such as in eyes, nose, lips, mouth, or genitalia) or open wounds.

Ebola has infected and killed so many fewer people than other infections such as influenza, pneumonia, malaria etc. that we don’t have to get hysterical. Case in point, one person has acquired Ebola in the US. He came into contact with many people on his trip to Texas from Liberia. Only 177 of them were judged to require isolation (separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick). Two nurses who cared for him were infected, yet he was the only person who died.

“Quarantine” is a 40 (thus the stem “quarant”) day isolation. The term was developed to describe the duration of time that a ship arriving in port and suspected of carrying contagious disease is held in isolation from the shore, a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons designed to prevent the spread of disease, a state of enforced isolation. Technically, the 21 day isolation period for Ebola is not a quarantine but functions like one.

Dr. Jacobson described the R0 of Ebola (R naught, is a measure of how easily an infection spreads) as being much much lower than many other diseases (R0 of Ebola is 1, which means 1-2 people will be infected by each person with the viral infection) and thus, Ebola really is much less frightening than the media makes it out to be. For comparison. With SARS 2-5 people will be infected for each case. Same with HIV. In Mumps 4-7 people will be infected by each person who is sick. For Smallpox 5-7. Pertussis will spread to 12-17 people and Measles to 12-18 people. Measles is so contagious because, besides being airborne, the viral particles can hang in the air, where a sick person has been, for hours.

For Ebola, there is no known cure (a complete solution or remedy) but prevention is rather easily accomplished since the R0 is so low. This is one of the main reasons that the West Africans were caught flat footed in this current epidemic. Ebola has never gotten to 20,000 people infected with almost 9,000 people dead before. In the rural environments where it has surfaced, it has died out before it killed very many.

The ethical questions for discussion are: What is the right action? How do we allocate our resources? Who decides? Who counts as ethically significant? These questions are not yet answered for Ebola. We, as Humanists, need to keep them in mind during the progression of the Ebola epidemic (affecting a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or regions at the same time).

During the influenza season (a more pertinent infection to us), Dr. Jacobson recommends that everyone get vaccinated, and take precautions when in groups: Don’t touch hands unless you can get to soap and water or antiseptic gel before touching mucous membranes. Wash hands frequently with soap and warm water. Stay away from people who are coughing and otherwise elaborating viruses, bacteria, fungi, and other “germs”. Stay home when ill.

For further reading see “Nature” Volume 514, 16 October 2014.

—Lauren Florence, MD


Hope For Humanity

I am holding a hope in my heart…
a hope for this human race, in which we all take part.

My heart is hurting with…
that Eric Garner, age 43, was not murdered for naught;
that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., age 39, was not assassinated in vain;
that Darrin Hunt, age 22, was not shot dead for nothing;
that Michael Brown, age 18, was not attacked and killed for no reason.

My mind is mourning each of these merciless murders…and many more,
while my heart, heedless to these repeated horrors, adheres to a faint
but palpable hope that there will not be yet another senseless, cruel death
next week, tomorrow, or this very next hour, minute, or second.

I am raising my reasoning and respect for all Americans—and all human being—
who refrain from answering pleas of “I Can’t Breathe!” with chokeholds!

I am pleading with the peace-keepers to please, please pardon
the pejorative insults persistent youth are hurling at systems of injustice.

I am begging every brother, sister, father, mother, daughter, son, boy, and girl alive
to treasure life—all life—so fiercely…to respect and guard and honor
every human being as they would their very own girl or boy, daughter or son,
father or mother, sister, or brother.

As we listen to every excruciating cry of these, our fellow humans who are dying,
May we hold this hope in our hearts, that their harrowing, heartrending cries
will never fall on apathetic hearts, numbed to injustice, or blighted by dispassion.

May our hearts hold up hope, as a beacon to obliterate apathy, injustice, and dispassion.

May our minds maintain the momentum needed to turn this hope into action.

May our human race collectively humanize the de-humanized.

May our journeys collide, and may all our hopes ignite the fires of compassion,
to heal all the hopeless hearts.

—Elaine Stehel


In Defiance of Mob Rule

JeSuisCharlieThe slaughter in Paris a few weeks ago at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher grocery market highlights both the necessity and the dangers of speaking out when faced with political idiocy, senseless violence, and irrational dogma. People were killed over some cartoons in a low-circulation satirical rag, for Pete’s sake! A German tabloid that ran some of the same cartoons in tribute to those killed was firebombed.

This brings up the obvious point that religion fears a sense of the ridiculous. Since religion is always a matter of unquestioning faith in a creed with little or no basis in logic or fact, calling attention to its silliness or fictitious nature is explicitly verboten. A sense of ridiculous in the congregation cannot be tolerated and must be suppressed lest the clergy be laughed out of the pulpit. As H.L. Mencken said “One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.” The cartoons in question were intended to invoke laughter, and we can’t have that, can we?

In these relatively tolerant United States it is considered merely bad taste and impolite to lampoon or even question someone’s religious beliefs. This was not always the case and old blasphemy laws are still on the books in some states. And even now the writer Sam Harris must travel with bodyguards, having been the subject of numerous death threats from Christians offended by his books The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Speaking out against the unreasonable takes courage, for people cling quite desperately to their beliefs, often willing to defend them with violence.

But in most countries where Islam is the predominant religion, such blasphemy is a capital offense. To publicly question even the most absurd poppycock can get you killed if that poppycock has anything to do with the Q’uran, the Prophet, or religious tradition. A blogger in Saudi Arabia was recently sentenced to 1,000 lashes, years in prison, and a huge fine for promoting tolerance. And in Pakistan, blasphemy accusations against Christians seem to be common, with false charges being used for revenge after simple street disputes. The accused are then subject to mob violence as well as the civil violence of the courts. One girl was sentenced to hang even though the accusations against her have all the hallmarks of hearsay and slander.

What is particularly galling is that the Islamists are demanding that we submit to their own mob rule, respecting their blasphemy decrees across international borders. A cleric in Yemen can inflame a crowd over some alleged insult to Islam, and the alleged offender will be assaulted or worse. The members of the mob will held blameless. The Islamists are threatening us with this same mob rule across international borders, demanding that our own private citizens curb their tongues or risk violent death by a sleeper cell of jihadi with no regard for our local laws, customs, or constitution. This type of criminal coercion is intolerable.

The cartoonists at Charlie Hedbo were publicly defying this absurd demand, loudly, vociferously, and rightly. They were courageous and correct in their defiance, the bad taste of the cartoons notwithstanding.

—Stephen Hanka


President’s Report

On February 12th our chapter will host its eighth annual “Darwin Day with Humanists of Utah.” As I ALWAYS say, “I’m looking forward to an enjoyable evening celebrating Science with friends and other like-minded people.” I’m also proud of the fact that we have maintained this event for eight years now. Plus, I have always come away from these events having learned something new. But science is more than just cold hard facts. Science imbues the mind with understanding (if you put it to use). It touches our senses and fills us with awe as we humans explore amid the beauty, complexity and vastness of the universe. But the awe we feel is different from that of the religious sort whose awe is toward a deity and all that that entails. For me, at least, my awe is the, “Wow, That’s really cool!” sort. Like the first time I saw the Hubble deep Field images of nearly countless galaxies in this small little piece of the sky that is in the neighborhood of 13 billion light years away. Now that’s awesome. Those images also helped us realize that an understanding of deep time is not unfathomable but an essential part of understanding the “workings” of the Universe. Now that’s awesome.

When I was thinking about this year’s theme for Darwin Day some months back, I enjoyed revisiting what we did at previous D. Days. So just for fun, here’s a quick rundown. In 2008 our first celebration had afternoon speakers Professors Kristen Hawkes and Henry Harpinton on biology and Darwin’s insight. Then in the evening Professor Scot Sampson talked about the need to educate about deep time and evolution. Our second D. Day featured Professor Frank Brown, Dean of Earth Sciences at the U of U who talked of the Hominid discoveries in the Turkana Basin in Africa he has worked on throughout his career. Our third featured Bruce Dain from the U of U who gave a historical presentation of Charles Darwin. Our forth had Professor David Goldsmith speaking paleontologically. Our fifth was at Westminster with Dr. Alan Rogers talking anthropologically. Our sixth Darwin Day was with Jon Seger on evolutionary biology. And last year our seventh, we cohosted with Utah Friends of Paleontology and featured Utah State Paleontologist James Kirkland speaking about Utah’s vast dinosaur quarry and collection.

After looking at the past years speakers I thought it would nice pick a subject other than the same ones from previous events, so I suggest Astronomy. The Board agreed so we decided to make Astronomy the theme for Darwin Day this year. To that end we have invited Paul Ricketts from the University of Utah to give us a presentation. He accepted and will give a presentation on “The Lives of Stars.” (See full details elsewhere.) As we usually do, we will have a reception with finger foods before the presentation, then the presentation followed by birthday cake. Again, as I always say, “Please join us for good food, enlightenment and good conversation.”

One more thing before I go. In the next few months I plan to write a series in the newsletter about guns and gun violence. It is a subject that needs more than one 500 word column, and it is a subject which I am squarely on both sides of the fence, which can be uncomfortable at times. I invite your comments and feelings about this subject and would love to consider them and even present them as part of the discussion. So call me or email me with your thoughts.

—Robert Lane
President, HoU


 

January 2015

The Future of Immortality

This article that was originally published ten years ago in our January 2005 newsletter.

Our society’s youth orientation has created a consumer culture devoted to prolonging our vitality and lives. Perhaps someday soon scientists will learn how to extend the human life span indefinitely, which may lead us to create a race of human “immortals.” This will inevitably change our attitudes towards family and aging, not to mention our understanding of life itself. Are we prepared to answer the questions this possibility will raise?

This question is raised by Brian Trent in his article, “The Future of Immortality,” in the May/June, 2004, issue of the Humanist.

“Death is natural, but not everything natural is good,” he says. There is a time-honored tendency to erect an altar to nature while simultaneously rebuking human civilization for its ingenuities. We choose to imagine the natural as a sort of Disney character filled with benevolence and tenderness, and in doing so we evade the more brutal, red-in-tooth-and claw reality. The scavenging life AHA of our earliest human ancestors who tread the narrow threshold between survival and extinction is forgotten–the winters that drove them into caves, the mortal combat with wooly titans of yesteryear, the young aspirations of a being who could hope for 20, maybe 25 years of life

“With no claws, no fur, no poison sacs or natural armor, the naked ape was headed for early and permanent retirement: a dead-end of evolution. Instead this vulnerable being made use of the only asset that distinguished it from its unforgiving environment: a three-pound organ housed within a delicate skull. And with this tool it enacted a legacy spanning from the first flint knife to the surgeon’s scalpel forever remaking the world to suit its needs. With its meteoric ascension came an increase in longevity.”

Brent Jones, says Trent, doesn’t exist, but one day someone like him most likely will. He wakes up each day with the perspective that tomorrow is forever because he is forever. Yesterday he celebrated his 800th birthday though he looks barely more than 30. He has lived longer than the entire history of the Roman Empire. He is the living example of homo sapiens’ most enduring dream: he is an immutable being. Perhaps he takes a weekly dose of youth drugs, or maybe his own genes have been permanently engineered to keep him perpetually youthful.

Perhaps someday soon, scientists will learn how to extend the human life span indefinitely. To a growing number of scientists and commentators, this is neither wild dreaming nor science fiction. The mechanics of aging and death are being laid bare in laboratories around the world. Evolutionary biologist Michael R. Rose of the University of California at Irvine has bred “immortal” fruit flies. While an average fruit fly lives several weeks, Rose possesses flies that have lived 24 years and still have a daily metabolic rate which is the same as that of normal flies. Trent says, “The Holy Grail of this research will be to discover what enzymes allow the insects to enjoy these stellar life spans and then find an equivalent dose for human beings.” Or it might be 62 enzymes plus DNA treatments.

As the human genome gets mapped, attention has fallen on two Upload genes that seem to be managers of the death process–Mortality 1 and Mortality 2. These genes seem to be responsible for ordering the body to wither and die. The Grim Reaper is truly under the microscope. It may bring to life a dream as old as civilization.

Death was an obsession to the brilliant Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, who devoted much time in his Meditations to proclaiming that “human lives are brief and trivial; yesterday a blob of semen, tomorrow embalming fluid and ash.” The ancient Egyptians interest in eternal life is well documented and & formed the basis for their mummification rituals. In China the self-proclaimed First Emperor Ch’in Shi Huangdi was so obsessed with finding immortality that he sent thousands of explorers to seek it out. When their efforts failed, he commissioned a full-body suit of pure jade to be his funeral cerements (Jade was believed to have magical powers of rejuvenation.)

Can we build a race of immortals? At what cost? But should we? Trent asks.

The first chorus of objections will hail from di a familiar source: the major parties and religions. They will parallel the vociferous objections bandied about when it was first suggested that the Earth wasn’t flat, that the sun was at the heart of the solar system, and that humanity evolved from early primates. After all, religion’s greatest strength is in OUR providing hope for the life beyond the one we now have. But if science suddenly could gives eternal life, then scientists would become the new priests, handing out eternity in pills rather than prayers.

Today the cosmetics industry offers an array of makeup, concealers, moisturizers, and other treatments to make wrinkles go away. Is it likely that consumers who fuel this global market will back off if eternal youth comes in pill form?

Secular opponents will raise their voices, too. The fear of overpopulation is the most immediate quandary. Already more than six billion strong, a race of immortals inevitably strain the planet’s resources to the breaking point. The prospect of constructing permanent settlements on the moon and Mars has found its way into the political spotlight. Would there be a ceiling for human population?

There’s something else to consider. If forever pills went on the market tomorrow, not everyone would take them. Many people are perfectly content to cash in their chips and go forth to whatever fate they believe awaits them–pearly gates, Valhalla, or the happy hunting grounds. There will likely be people who, after a full life of 200 or two million years, will decide that enough is simply enough.

General social upheaval is the next and biggest concern. What do you do when a company has an immortal board of directors? Or when you’re married to someone for nine centuries and finally become bored with it all? Or when you have a senator who has lingered in the government for five thousand years? With the possibility of immortality, the fabric of society may be stretched and pulled until it breaks and will have to be rewoven. Even the scientific community could raise objections. Immortals could represent an affront to and the end of evolution. But this is nothing new. We don’t surrender to nature; we fight back. Not just biological evolution but creative and social evolution as well will be under threat. Will immortal nations enter a state of torpor, devitalized by a lack of ambition and innovation? Or will limitless horizons be seized with new force? Will a poet’s lament be not over death but be over the vastness of eternity?

Life isn’t always pleasant, even if we subtract the dread of dying from the equation. If 80 years is difficult to cope with how would Brent Jones handle 800? With newscasts showing him the latest wars, disease and human cruelty, does there ever reach a point when he decides to cancel his dose of eternity? If the doors of the brave new world swing wide, everything will be transformed. We might perish like bacteria in a petri dish. Or an undying race might achieve a perennial Golden Age even the most inspired Greek dared not imagine.

Either way,” says Trent, “the immortals are likely coming… There may be people alive right now who could live to see endless sunrises. Dreaming of the reality for so long, humanity won’t back away when the creeping dawn of attainment can already be seen brightening the attainment.”

Richard Layton


Spirituality

This article that was originally published 23 years ago in our January 1992 newsletter.

I was recently requested to moderate a panel of religious leaders discussing “The Spiritual Aspects of Death and Dying.” The panel was composed of representatives from four different denominations. I was challenged by the opportunity, but could find no resource material on the subject of humanistic spirituality. Apparently humanists have discarded the use of the term, along with the words prayer and religion because they have such strong connotations of mysticism. I refuse to give orthodox religions exclusive use of these poetic terms so I did a little research and found resources and definitions that I find humanistically comfortable.

In the book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People, the author Harold Kushner refers to the French sociologist Emile Durkheim’s 1912 publication “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life” in which he suggested that the primary purpose of religions at its earliest level was not to put people in touch with god, but to put them in touch with one another. Religious rituals taught people how to share with their neighbors the experiences of birth and bereavement, of children marrying and parents dying. There were rituals for planting and harvesting, for winter solstice and for the vernal equinox. In that way, the community would be able to share the most joyous and the most frightening moments of life. No one would have to face them alone. (Page 119)

As a humanist I find that definition of religion completely compatible with the social passion of Humanist Manifestos I & II

A recent issue of “The American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care” (Sept/Oct 1991, Page 17) Thomas Welk says:

It is important to make a distinction between spirituality and religions. In explaining the issue of spirituality it becomes necessary to emphasize that this is the most central, deepest and most complex of human needs. It is often referred to as the integrative, creative function. It is our way of making sense, meaning, and significance out of life.

In the same issue of the magazine (page 33) another author, Richard Dershimer, writes, “I used spirituality in the secular sense, that is, humans turning their attention away from worlds beyond and toward this world and this time without, necessarily, recourse to religious creeds or doctrines. The spirit can be described as that force within each person that fosters good, the just, the beautiful and the truthful in life. It is both mysterious and consciously concrete, but it results in maximizing human awareness and connection to life.”

After finding this material on religion and spirituality and with the late Harold Scott’s definition of prayer, “The expression of the highest of human aspirations.” Recalled to consciousness, I was able to comfortably accept the offer of moderating the panel on “The Spiritual Aspects of Death and Dying.”

—Flo Wineriter


President’s Report

Happy New Year everyone! I hope your all well and enjoying the holidays. It gets kind of busy for me, because as many of you know, I bake a lot of cookies this time of year; but I do enjoy sharing them with others during the holiday season. Even if it means rolling out a couple thousand! I’ll be bringing some to our January meeting also.

Last night, New Year’s Eve, I called Flo Wineriter, to wish him a happy 90th Birthday. He sounded good and said he was feeling a bit better. He will be spending much of his time in St. George but will visit back here in the Salt Lake area monthly.

Humanists of Utah owe much to Flo. He was one of the co-founders of Humanist of Utah and served as President for many years. We greatly appreciate his wisdom and leadership, his knowledge of humanism, and that through the years and that he is always friendly to all. So again, Happy Birthday and Happy New Year Flo. As we were saying good bye, he told me to go out and make Humanists of Utah successful again this coming year. I told him we would do our best.

We have a good start this year as our January 8th general meeting will feature Dr. Jay Jacobsen as our speaker and of course some of those cookies I’m always bragging about and good conversation to go with them.

Then in February we will host our 8th annual Darwin Day with Humanists of Utah. This year we will be hosting the event at Eliot Hall. We are hoping to have astronomy as the theme, and I am currently working on finalizing our speaker. This year Darwin’s birthday, February 12th, actually falls on our usual second Thursday meeting day. It is an event I always look forward to because of my love for science. I always enjoy celebrating and advocating for science on Darwin’s birthday.

Our chapter will also have several opportunities to participate in events throughout the year, such the Utah Pride festival, street fairs, and perhaps the state fair as well. But participation in some events will only be possible if we get a few more members to volunteer to help. Please give it some consideration.

It would also please me to just hear from some of the membership. Wayne would love to include a letter or book recommendation or tell us about an interesting web site.

One possibility to get something going with members might be to start a new recommended book list. In the past we have had a printed list, but it hasn’t been updated in a few years, so maybe we can start a new one. Which reminds me that our web site is being upgraded, and a recommended book page can surly be one of the features. Anyway, Think about your favorite books and let us know.

Bye for now and see you next week for our January meeting, and bring a friend.

—Robert Lane
President, HoU