Friday, 15 October 2010
The Fish has just one question: What is the point?
Napoleon Hill said: “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve”. There are cases where the Fish hopes not - more super weapons anyone? But if it were not for advances in modern medicine The Fish would not be alive to bring you all this insightful stuff in place one and no technological advances and I'd be stuck with my nearest and dearest, who know better than to listen to me, and the neighbours, who would soon start to hide when they saw me coming! Progress is a good thing, an inevitable thing, right? Scientists at Manchester University are suggesting that life since the Industrial Revolution has not been without its costs as well as its benefits.
A study at the university has looked at ancient Egyptian and Greek literature and human remains and come to the conclusion that cancer was almost unknown in these societies. The first operations for cancer and descriptions of tumors come from the 17th century and only in the last 200 years has there been scientific reports of distinctive tumours. The reason for this could be many, of course, and the study itself could be flawed in some way but it would appear that we need to look at the costs of progress to our planet and to ourselves. Professor Rosalie David, at the university's faculty of life science concludes: "There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle."
There is a nothing-new-there quality to this story and the clock will never be turned back to some idyllic golden age in which we all lived in a kind of pre-lapsian innocence, which probably never existed anyway. The other medical news this week, of the first use of embryonic stem cells to repair a spinal injury, point to the good that progress can bring. But the Fish would like to see progress with thought for people and for the planet, not, as is too often the case, for it's own sake or merely for profit.
YOU CAN READ THE FULL MANCHESTER EVENING NEWS ARTICLE HERE:
Monday, 11 October 2010
If you don't know what all the fuss is about check out La Stupenda on youtube
Saturday, 9 October 2010
On a lighter note we say farewell to Butch, one of the Tamworth Two. In 1998 they made a bid for freedom and became heros to the nation, (England has some odd notions of whom it considers it's heros and those whom it merely catapaults into the spotlight) (Ah, an explaination of Simon Cowell's sucess at last?) Two Tamworth pigs heading for the slaughter house made a dash for freedom and spent a week on the run. They were named Butch and Sundance The reward for this porcine audacity was to spend the rest of their lives in a rare breeds centre after they were purchased by the Daily Male newpaper- never to be bacon. The sibling pigs have lived cheek by jowell, or snout by trotter perhaps, ever since and now Butch, the sow, has gone to piggy heaven via mother nature rather than the more brutal fate once resevered for her. Her brother, now elderly and artiritic, lives on alone. The fish sends condolences!
FOR MORE ON THIS STORY CLICK HERE
Monday, 4 October 2010
The Daily Mail reports that in a television interview on a Sunday morning God slot Virginia declared she would suffocate a suffering child to spare it further pain and went on to suggest a loving mother who chooses to abort a disabled or unwanted child is committing a 'moral and unselfish act.' (And before the shouting gets too loud let me say Yes, she does have a child and grandchildren.)
I think Virginia is brave to vaunt such unpopular opinions, especially before a bona fide reverend. But surely she is putting the cart a little before the horse? A loving mother, or someone who hopes to be one someday, would surely use contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy in place one? (We all know contraception has it's failings but ten out of ten for trying). As to Virgina's apparent altruism in declaring better abortion than a lifetime of physical suffering that begs a very delicate question of who decides how much is too much? My partner's niece died recently at age only 37, after a lifetime of suffering. She led a full and happy life, surrounded by the love of family, having two children of her own. Was her mother less loving for not denying her the chance for such a life?
When lines have to be drawn on moral issues there are always experts, self and society appointed, queueing up with the yardsticks of their choice. Moral issues are never black and white, they are murkier than dishwater. Virginia would end her child's suffering, if that child were mine I do not think I could do anything to hurry on his/her end, though I would give the last drop of my blood to alleviate their suffering in any other way. Who is right? As this debate began on a religious programme lets leave the last word to Jesus Christ 'judge not lest ye be jud
Read the orginal article:
Follow the fish on twitter
Friday, 1 October 2010
One for the Not Suitable For Those of a Nervous Disposition file. The fish was startled to learn, via USA Today, that the fossils of five feet tall penguins have been uncovered and these monsters roamed Peru about 36 million years ago. What next will they discover, the fish wonders? Mice the size of Yorkshire terriers? Bats with a six foot wingspan? The mind truly boggles.