Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

It’s fascinating and inspiring to watch a bud mature into a flower.

It’s a process of unfolding and unfurling. The tightly packed young petals expanding and unwinding as they grow opening up to reveal the flower in all its glory.

From a certain perspective the flower is there already in the small green bud, it’s future path laid out before it. It’s fate, it’s destiny, to become a very particular type of flower, even if it’s individual uniqueness will be determined by an innumerable complex of factors…time, place, climate, weather events, insects and chemicals, natural and manmade in the environment, human hands…..

It’s a beautiful phenomenon. This interplay of the past, the present and the future, bringing into reality a specific creation, a unique single “actual” from the “multiplicity of singularities” of possibilities.

It’s just as beautiful in human beings. Watching the newborn child unfold his or her character, unfurl his or her body, as they grow, develop, mature into the fully expressed uniqueness they are in the universe….it’s awe inspiring.

It inspires me to open, to spread my wings, to choose growth and development, to express the uniqueness that is me.

I hope it does exactly the same for you.

Read Full Post »

Burden of proof

One of my favourite French magazines is “Sens et Santé” (that translates as “Sense and Health”). The latest issue has a major section on the effects on human health of exposure to natural environments. They describe several scientific studies showing lowering of inflammatory substances in the body after walking, or contemplating, in a forest, reductions in blood sugar levels, improvements in mood levels, reductions in the need for painkillers, and the famous study showing post surgical patients with a view of a wall required more medication and longer admissions than those who had a view of trees outside.

They even describe the inspiring “nature prescriptions” project in Shetland where GPs are giving patients a calendar of activities in nature to pursue each week. The calendar is a joint project of the local health service and the RSPB (the UK’s bird charity).

I delighted in reading all of this, but then I wondered do we really need research to “prove” or even simply highlight the health benefits of spending time in nature?

Does any of this information change my mind about anything? No. I’ve been convinced that natural environments are “a good thing” for a long time.

Maybe these studies just reinforce my confidence in my views and my beliefs?

Well, I’m not so sure. I think they deepen my understanding.

And that, for me, is science at its best.

I don’t see science as a way to gain control over the world, although that does seem to be the dominant view these days. No, I like science when it provokes my curiosity, stimulates my “émerveillement” (wonder and delight), and deepens my understanding of the world.

The philosopher Deleuze described three ways of thinking. Philosophy, he said, was thinking about concepts, art, thinking about percepts and affects, and science, thinking about function.

In that scheme, science helps me to understand how something comes to be the way it is. It answers “how?” but not necessarily “why?”.

I reckon Deleuze got it right and we need all these ways of thinking to better understand the world.

Since I retired and moved to France I’ve read a lot of philosophy. I’m not trained in philosophy. I just enjoy it. It struck me the other day that philosophy doesn’t really present itself as the ultimate, be all and end all, the way modern science does too often.

Philosophy seems more about opening the doors to understanding and reflection, to thinking, “if I look at the world this way, then…..” and a path of exploration lies ahead.

Science which pursues certainty too often claims “the truth, the only truth” and discards any alternatives. At least, that’s the kind of science I like least. All those headlines that science has proven this or that or disproved that or this. I can’t be doing with them. It seems to me there’s a difference between seeking utility and seeking understanding.

I visited the Chateau de Clos Lucé in the Loire Valley where Leonardo da Vinci spent his last few years. The king, Francois 1st, invited him, gave him board and lodging plus an annual grant and told him he was free to do whatever he wanted. All the king wanted in return was a daily conversation with him. How many scientists would love that kind of arrangement over their current publication driven grant seeking working lives? How different might our world be if we just supported scientific pursuit of understanding, in the realistic knowledge that understanding is never complete, never “the truth, the only truth”? Seems to me that might be better than the agenda of prediction and control funded by those who seek wealth and power.

I didn’t expect this post to go this way but I’ll finish by saying I love the scientific pursuit of understanding but I’ve also come to love the philosophical pursuit of “how might I live”. I think that’s why I like “Sens et Santé”.

Read Full Post »

The Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh has been a place of wonder for me for many, many years. As a student I lived within walking distance of the gardens and would take my Medical textbooks there to study. Throughout my life I’ve returned there, and although many parts are familiar it has constantly changed. I’ve never walked there without stopping several times to gaze in wonder at some astonishing plant.

I’m a great fan of “l’émerveillement du quotidien” – the wonder of the everyday – it’s one of my most favourite strategies for a happy, healthy life, and I know of nothing more likely to astonish me than Nature.

I took this photo the other day and I find it both breath-taking and entrancing, so I thought I’d share it with you.

As I gazed on this scene, this poem, by Yeats, came into my head –

Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths,   
Enwrought with golden and silver light,   
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths   
Of night and light and the half light,   
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;   
I have spread my dreams under your feet;   
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.


Read Full Post »

Sometimes I find threads which connect various, apparently completely different, books. Here’s one such example.

I’m reading Alain Juppé’s “Dictionnaire amoureux de Bordeaux”, and one of his entries is about Jacques Ellul, who was a Professor of Law and wrote about sociology, philosophy and theology, amongst other topics. One of his major themes was what he termed “Technique”. I won’t go into that in any detail here. I’ll write something else about it some other time. But here’s the phrase of his which hit me between the eyes – “Suppression du sujet” – the suppression of the subject. This is what happens when we turn a blind eye to the uniqueness of each human being, or when we reduce a “subject” to an “object”. This is an issue close to my heart and I’m going to explore it more, but what immediately came to my mind when I read that phrase were a few lines in the opening paragraph of Marguerite Yourcenar’s “Memoirs of Hadrian“. Specifically, this –

It is difficult to remain an emperor in presence of a physician, and difficult even to keep one’s essential quality as a man.

When I read that two thoughts jumped into my mind. One was how I had never experienced intimidation when I consulted with a patient. No matter whether or not the person was a celebrity, a Lord, or a Professor. It wasn’t that I felt better than them, but I saw everyone as unique, wounded and suffering. But I only thought about that because this is an emperor speaking. The other thought, which I reckon is more important, was the second phrase in the sentence – “…..difficult even to keep one’s essential quality as a man” – there is something potentially de-humanising about health care. It happens when doctors and nurses refer to a patient by their diagnosis instead of by their name. Indeed, not only refer to them as “a case of X”, but treat them that way too, considering only the “data”, the “results”, as important and not the lived experience of this unique person.

When visiting my mum in hospital recently, I overheard one nurse in the corridor say to another “Have you taken the blood from Bed 14 yet?” I thought, good luck getting blood out of a bed!

Sadly it’s not uncommon to witness health care based on the “suppression of the subject”. Outcomes, targets, measurements, doses, and all the technical paraphernalia of machines, tubes and flashing lights can obscure the human being completely.

When I read the sentence in The Memoirs of Hadrian, I wrote in the margin, some lines from T S Eliot’s “The Cocktail Party” –

In consultation with the doctor and the surgeon

In going to bed in the nursing home

In talking to the matron, you are still the subject,

the centre of reality. But stretched on the table

you are a piece of furniture in a repair shop….

All there is of you is your body

and the “you” is withdrawn.

The subject as the centre of reality – is that basis of our health care? Is it the basis of our politics, our economics, our schools, our workplaces? Because if it isn’t….it should be!

This “subject” which Ellul says is suppressed, this “essential quality” of Hadrian’s, this “you” which Eliot says is withdrawn. What is it?

That’s my thought for the day – how do we get to know the subject, the “me”, the “you”, the “self”, the “person”? And how do we make that REALITY the core of our societies?

Because when we objectify human beings we lose touch with reality, and we open the door to all kinds of cruelties and suffering.

Read Full Post »

IMG_1130

Let’s talk about death.
Because we don’t.
Somehow it’s not acceptable to talk about death, almost as if it’s bad manners, or maybe just that you’re going to make someone uncomfortable by talking about it because death is something we all hope to avoid. Today, anyway! Maybe we think that if we don’t talk about it, don’t even think about it, then it won’t happen. Which is equivalent to a child covering their eyes to hide and thinking nobody can see them.
Death is certain. It’s inevitable, inescapable, unavoidable.
Yes, yes, I know that, but let’s deal with it when it comes along, and, look, it’s not coming any time soon, right?
I don’t have the impression that death is difficult for the dead, but, then, what do I know? I’ve never talked to a dead person. Or, more accurately, no dead people have ever talked to me.
Dying, on the other hand, can be really difficult. I’ve seen difficult deaths, been present through those final weeks, days, minutes of final struggle. Some of those deaths make the moment of death like a release, a final end to suffering.
And death is difficult for the living. It’s loss, emptiness, sadness, distress, grief….It changes the lives of the living permanently. Life is not the same after death.
But life is never the same anyway. Life is a process of constant change. Even in the midst of our most fixed habits and routines, life changes. Relationships are formed, relationships fall apart, new jobs appear, old jobs go, people enter our lives, and they leave, some temporarily, some permanently. Isn’t death just one of those changes? A kind of ultimate experience of transience?
How many deaths have you witnessed?
I’ll never forget the first time I had to certify someone as dead. As a Junior Doctor working in a hospital, one of my responsibilities was to confirm that a patient had died, and initiate the formal recognition of their death, writing in their case file “Time of death” and entering the time I declared it. The first time for me I was called, as on call doctor, at about 3am, to a ward I’d never visited before. An elderly patient there, whose death was expected, had just died. It was my responsibility to examine him for signs of life. I took my time. I didn’t want to get it wrong! I listened to his chest for a long time, but couldn’t hear any heart beats. I tested for various reflexes and got not response. I stared long and hard into his eyes, using a device called an ophthalmoscope, shining a light onto his retinae to look for the signs of death I’d been trained to see. Finally, I was convinced. Looked at my watch, and retired to the little office at the end of the ward to write the formal statement of my examination and the date and time of his death. As I walked back along the empty main corridor I began to think about what I’d just experienced. I wondered whether or not it was true that we each have a soul, and whether or not that soul hovers around the body for a little time after death, before departing. I wondered if the man’s soul had been hovering around behind me, as I checked his body for signs of life. I wondered if his soul might have started to follow me from the bedside to the office, and maybe, now, as I walked down this empty corridor. I started to walk faster and wondered whether or not a soul could keep pace with a living person. My heart started to beat faster and as I turned into the on call rooms corridor to go to bed I flicked on the light switch in the stair well and “bang!” the light bulb flashed on then immediately went out again. Well, that spooked me! I ran up the dark stairs taking two or three steps at a time, fumbled as I tried to get my key into the on call room door, eventually managing, throwing the door open wide, then slamming it hard behind me. As I stood, breathing heavily, with my back to the door, I suddenly thought. “Hey, surely ghosts can walk through walls!” At that point I realised how absurd it was to be imagining such things. Took me a while to settle though!
I’ve seen many deaths since then. I don’t think it ever became routine. I didn’t imagine souls hovering around me any more, but I always found the experience disturbing. Maybe that’s just normal.
For most of us we won’t have experienced many deaths directly. When they happen, they are significant events. They feel like something has gone wrong. Maybe somebody is to blame. Maybe someone has failed. Maybe we even feel the dead person has failed….failed to rage against the dying of the light.
When you talk to people who have had an encounter with death, a near miss, a sudden, or unexpected one, brought on by an accident or an illness, it’s not uncommon that they will say it’s made them realise how precious life is, how fragile, how maybe until that moment they hadn’t really known that. Well, known it as a sort of fact, but not known it as a person. There’s a difference. Maybe they’ll say they’d have a wake up call. A wake up call to what? To the knowledge of the shortness of life. They might say it’s made them realise that if they want to make the most of life, then it might be a good idea to start now.
Or they might have a heightened sense of reality, of the unpredictability of life, or even of the inevitability of its ending.
Thinking about death because you’ve survived a serious accident, recovered from a serious illness, or have just experienced the death of a loved one, a friend, or a colleague, can make you re-evaluate your life.
Re-value your life.
Feel how precious and fragile it is and decide to make some changes, to stop procrastinating, to stop living this way in the hope that one day, in the distant future, you’ll be able to live a different way.
That’s the gift of death. The gift of life.
Do we have to go through such an experience to get there? Can we only wake up, reassess our choices and values by having personal encounters with death? Or can we make such decisions, initiate such changes, by thinking about death, or talking about it?
If you knew you had one year left to live, what would you do differently?
Stephen Levine, who passed away in January, 2016, wrote a best selling book entitled “A Year to Live” where he describes the process of living as if you have only one year left. Many people have followed his programme since.
But the whole idea of thinking about death as a way to a better, or should I say, more considered, life, goes all the way back to Socrates (there are whole schools of thought on this subject from many other cultures too)

In the Phaedo Plato has Socrates claim that in death the soul is released from the impure and contaminated body, and thus becomes able to attain pure knowledge of Truth. In the dialogue Socrates says: “It really has been shown to us that, if we are ever to have pure knowledge, we must escape from the body and observe things in themselves with the soul by itself. It seems likely that we shall, only then, when we are dead, attain that which we desire and of which we claim to be lovers, namely, wisdom…”
Thus according to Plato upon death the philosopher achieves that which he has been striving for his entire life. Because of this Plato has Socrates claim that the practice of philosophy in life is really a dress rehearsal for what comes in death: “…those who practice philosophy in the right way are in training for dying, and they fear death least of all men.”
Since the time of Socrates and Plato philosophy has assisted countless individuals confront their own mortality, and provided consolation in the face of what many consider the greatest of all evils – death.

A related train of thought is wondering what you would do differently if somebody you knew had only a year left to live. What if that somebody was your mum or dad, a brother or sister, a lover, partner or friend?
And what if it wasn’t a year? What if it was five years, or, ten? Would that change anything? Would either of those scenarios lead to different choices?
So, a little contemplation on death from time to time, might have a serious impact on both the way we live, and the way we are with others.
You know, I think there’s an awful lot more we could consider down this road, but maybe that’s enough for now.
Before I finish, though, when I was researching life expectancy figures for the articles I was writing about health, I discovered that a male Scot aged 65 (that’ll be me in a few months time!) has a life expectancy of a further 19. 7 years. When I read that I had mixed feelings. I mean twenty years seems quite a long time, right? But on the other hand, it feels as almost no time at all! But what I realised I was doing with that figure was considering it as an end point. I thought, well I might just see the start of 2040 then! But then I read what “life expectancy” is. It’s a median. That means that in 19.7 years time, 50% of male Scots, aged 65 today, will be have died. But 50% will live beyond that timescale. It’s not an end point. It’s the 50/50 point!
Hey, how human is it to grasp at offer of hope?! (Well, that’s another subject to consider….the importance of hope)
OK, this is like a PPS but I must tell you about the patient I saw one day. I knew her from previous visits, but this day she seemed particularly out of sorts. I asked her what was bothering her and she said “My husband’s been diagnosed with cancer. He’s been told he’s got six months to live”
I sympathised with her and asked how that news had made her feel. Her reply took me completely by surprise.
“I’m angry. Really angry. I mean how come he gets to know how long he’s got and I don’t get to know how long I’ve got?!”
We had an interesting conversation about uncertainty after that!

Read Full Post »

sinking boat

This is my last article in this series about health. I started by addressing the needs of health services, then continued with an exploration of how to move towards healthier communities so that more people might expect more years of healthy life. I began with shelter, exploring housing, then, food, education, and the environment.

Finally, I want to address the issue of inequality.

In Scotland, in 2008, life expectancy figures revealed that men living in one part of Glasgow could expect to live 28 years more than those in another part. This was publicised as the plight of “Shettleston man”, named after the area with the poorest male life expectancy. Twenty eight years of difference in two areas a mere 15 minutes away from each other.
Shocking? Of course. This wasn’t the full story. The number and severity of illnesses suffered by the men in poor Shettleston, were far greater than those living in the more affluent, Lenzie.
Since 2008, that picture has changed somewhat, partly because that dramatic figure was a result of high numbers of drug deaths. Ten years later the figures still show huge differences between the richest and the poorest parts of Glasgow. One area has a male life expectancy of 82, whilst in another it’s 66 – still a difference of 16 years.

This huge inequality in health experience and in life expectancy are closely linked to other inequalities, from income, employment, and housing to education.
For many years Richard Wilkinson and his partner, Kate Pickett have produced research evidence for inequality itself being one of the most significant factor in the production of these shocking statistics. It’s not just poverty, it’s inequality.
They’ve recently published more findings which explore the links between mental health, wellbeing and inequality. What they demonstrate is some of the potential mechanisms of the links between inequality and illness, through the psychological impacts which are part of the daily lives of the poorest communities.
We don’t live in isolation.
We can’t just exhort people to eat more healthily, smoke and drink less, and move more and expect the population to suddenly become healthier. We have to address the conditions in which people live. Unless we tackle inequality it’s going to be hard to bring better health to the majority of the population.
Many reports have shown how inequality around the world is on the increase. This article, in The New Yorker neatly summarises the findings of the French economist Thomas Piketty on this issue.

The famous “elephant graph” (so called because of its shape) shows what’s happened over the last four decades.

elephant graph

Is this inevitable?
Surely not. It wasn’t always the case, and it’s actually changing. If we want to change it in a different direction we’ll need to get to grips with ways in which the richest manage to grab and hoard their wealth.

A recent story reported that, in the US, Amazon, despite making a profit of $11.2 billion, they’ll not only be paying zero Federal tax, but will actually receive a tax rebate of $126 million.

It’s not only the richest corporations who work hardest to pay as little tax as they can. Individuals do too. The CEO of Ineos, the UK’s richest man, is moving to Monaco to save £4 billion in tax. His two wealthiest executives are following suit.

The “Panama Papers”, leaked from the offshore law firm, Mossad Fonesca, revealed, amongst other things

“the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin – is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.”

 

The “Paradise Papers” are another big data leak related to a separate company showed many, many, similar examples

“Key revelations include:
Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people.
Prince Charles’s estate made a big profit on a stake in his friend’s offshore firm.
Extensive offshore dealings by Donald Trump’s cabinet members, advisers and donors, including substantial payments from a firm co-owned by Vladimir Putin’s son-in-law to the shipping group of the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross.
Twitter and Facebook received hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that can be traced back to Russian state financial institutions.
The tax-avoiding Cayman Islands trust managed by the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s chief moneyman.
The Formula One champion Lewis Hamilton avoided taxes on a £17m jet using an Isle of Man scheme.
Oxford and Cambridge and top US universities invested offshore, with some of the money going into fossil fuel industries.
A previously unknown $450m offshore trust that has sheltered the wealth of Lord Ashcroft.
The man managing Angola’s sovereign wealth fund invested it in projects he stood to profit from.
Apple secretly moved parts of its empire to Jersey after a row over its tax affairs.
How the sportswear giant Nike stays one step ahead of the taxman.
The huge tax refunds given by the Isle of Man to the owners of private jets.
Offshore cash helped fund Steve Bannon’s attacks on Hillary Clinton.
The secret loan and alliance used by the London-listed multinational Glencore in its efforts to secure lucrative mining rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
A former UK minister who defended tax avoidance has a Bahamas trust fund.
The complex offshore webs used by two Russian billionaires to buy stakes in Arsenal and Everton football clubs.
Stars of the BBC hit sitcom Mrs Brown’s Boys used a web of offshore companies to avoid tax.
British celebrities including Gary Lineker used an arrangement that let them avoid tax when selling homes in Barbados.
Prominent Brexit campaigners have put money offshore.
The Dukes of Westminster pumped millions into secretive offshore firms.
A tax haven lobby group boasted of “superb penetration” at the top of the UK government before a G8 summit that was expected to bring in greater offshore transparency.
The law firm at the centre of the Paradise Papers leak was criticised for “persistent failures” on terrorist financing and money laundering rules.
Seven Republican super-donors keep money in tax havens.
A top Democratic donor built up a vast $8bn private wealth fund in Bermuda.
The schemes used to avoid tax on UK property deals.
The celebrities, from Harvey Weinstein to Shakira, with offshore interests.
How a private equity firm tried to extract £890m from a struggling care home operator by making it take out a costly loan.
Trump’s close ally Robert Kraft, the New England Patriots owner, is the longtime owner of an offshore firm.
One of the world’s biggest touts used an offshore firm to avoid tax on profits from reselling Adele and Ed Sheeran tickets.”

It’s only the wealthiest individuals and companies which go to such lengths to contribute less of their wealth to the societies in which they made their gains.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, there is a growing evidence that increasing minimum wages is a great way to make positive impacts on populations.

A 2011 national study showed that low-skilled workers reported fewer unmet medical needs in states with higher minimum-wage rates. In high-wage states, workers were better able to pay for the care they needed. In low-wage states, workers skipped medical appointments

“Studies have linked higher minimum wages to decreases in low birth-weight babies, lower rates of teen alcohol consumption and declines in teen births. A 2016 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that between roughly 2,800 and 5,500 premature deaths that occurred in New York City from 2008 to 2012 could have been prevented if the city’s minimum wage had been $15 an hour during that time, instead of a little over $7 an hour.”

None of these issues can be tackled in isolation. They need co-operation and collaboration. That should encourage us, because these are two of the greatest strengths of the human species.

 

Read Full Post »

two webs

How do you have a healthy population of human beings without a healthy environment? Isn’t it pretty obvious the two issues are linked? Because there are no human beings who live outside of the environment. You could even say that it’s a false distinction. There is no “us” here, and an “environment” over there. It’s not like the environment is a foreign country you can visit with a tourist visa.
But what do I mean by environment? I often find I’m tempted to write environment in the plural, to talk about “environments” rather than a singular object called “THE environment. Because the environment is just the circumstances in which we live. It’s that vast web of connections which weaves every single individual into the whole.
There’s a physical environment of earth, air, water and fire. There are the cyclical environments of energy, of heat, cold, wind and rain.
There are the geographic environments of place. There’s a long running French TV series called “Rendez vous au terre inconnu” (Meeting in unknown places), where someone spends two weeks with a remote tribe and a camera crew capture the experience. I love it. It’s done with great sensitivity and compassion. Every episode opens your eyes to other ways of living and it is frequently surprisingly moving. It’s very human. In one episode they did return visits to three places and showed each group the original films of both their own place and the places of the other two. One group lived high in the mountains, one in a region of permanent snow and ice, and a third on houses built on poles in the sea. It was startling to see such diversity and to see each group express their astonishment that other people could choose to live so differently. There’s no doubt that the physical places where we live influence our daily habits, our diets, our whole outlook and our patterns of disease and health.
City dwellers face different challenges from rural ones. Coastal communities different ones from desert dwellers. And so on.
But there are other, less visible, environments. Our social environment of family, friends, colleagues and neighbours. Our cultural environment of values, practices and beliefs. Our political environment of laws, limits and agreements. And so on.
We live embedded in all of these and more. We are influenced by them, and we influence them.

 
In the books as “Linked”, by Barabasi, “Connected”, by Christakis, “The Bond”, by Lynne McTaggart, and “The God Problem”, by Bloom, we can see how we live in networks of relationships which influence everything from or chances of becoming obese, or catching certain infections, to the daily choices we make. We are not as “individual” and separate as we think we are.
Look how “memes” spread, how videos become “viral”, how quickly behaviours and attitudes spread across cultural and physical borders through social media.
If we want to create healthier populations we have to address these environments.
I was going to write about things like the number of industrial chemicals which can be detected in the blood of new born babies in Paris, or the insecticides, fertilisers, herbicides present in everyone’s urine, or the number of prescription drugs which are present in our drinking water, or the amount of plastic washing up on remote islands, or even the estimated 400,000+ people who die every year in Europe from disease caused by air pollution.
But I’m not going to.

You can read any of these kinds of details any time. If those sorts of stories don’t appear in your newsfeeds, you can search for them online. They really are not hard to find.
No, the only point I want to make here is that we do not live separate lives, so if we want to create healthier societies we need to pay attention to our multiple environments. We need to understand them better, then make some different choices. Together.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »