TaN: Cleaning agents or solutions — such as anti-bacterial soaps and detergents and stuff like that — are mainly redundant and as such is a waste of hard-earned money and lines the pockets only of the manufacturer. It must be remembered and understood that water will cling to any irregularity or impurity on any surface.
Applying this, when a surface, say a dish or glass panel, is clean, water simply slides off — called sheeting. When there are spots of water droplets, it only means the surface is not clean. Water clings to any impurity or remnants on any surface, which explains the droplets and eventual spots that develop when the water evaporates and leaving the residue.
Extending this argument to bacteria and grime and stuff too small to be visible, there will be water droplets present — clinging to the bacteria. But when the water simply sheets off the surface, it means there is nothing there, not even bacteria. Ergo, if and when I wash a surface clean with water, elbow grease, and some soap or cleaning/scrubbing agent (like baking soda) and the water sheets off, it means there is no bacteria so using anti-bacteria soaps and detergents are just a waste of my money — and, many times, are hazardous to the environment (in the immediate surroundings or further “down the stream”).
It must be further noted that bacteria and viruses abound everywhere and will not hesitate to colonize any available unoccupied space or surface. In this regard, upon cleaning with any bactericide substance, once the potency or activity of the substance has lapsed or disappeared, bacteria and viruses, being opportunistic organisms that they are, will soon take root and the whole exercise of using toxic cleaning substances becomes futile and inutile.
In addition, there are, in truth, no harmful bacteria or virus, not unless we provide them the “opening”. Bacteria and viruses “go on the offensive” if and only when the right conditions exist — which is that the environment is acidic. In fact, it is for this reason that most decaying matter frequently smell sour or acidic. They will occupy alkaline environments but will remain deactivated or impotent or inactive unless and until the conditions become favorable.
In nature, an acidic environment signifies death or dying — i.e., something living has died or is in the process of dying — whereas an alkaline environment indicate life and health. This is similar to the argument of Antoine Beaucamp — arch-rival of Louis Pasteur — in his argument that it is the terrain that determines health and disease and not the random whimsical “action-decisions” of germs and microbes.
Finally, regardless of whether the culprit is a pathogen or some other cause or reason, the fact remains that it is the sole responsibility of our immune system to protect us against any and all that will threaten our health and safety and it will overcome if we support and provide it with all the essential and necessary nutrients to ensure adequate defense.
What is important is to remember: If we take care of our body, our body will take care of us — no need for outside/external intercessions in the form of toxic chemicals (pharmaceuticals) that do more harm than good.
TaN: Surrogacy becomes unethical when it is commercialized, it is commoditized, whenever there is financial gain regardless of side or party involved. Being a surrogate is noble thing. It enables a person to perform or act as a substitute for another, who may be incapable. It empowers both the surrogate and the intended parents. The surrogate is enable to provide a service that the intended parents otherwise cannot perform on their own, while the intended parents receive a blessing.
The nobleness of surrogacy is lost because, while the surrogacy is still carried out, the surrogate loses if not cheapens the altruism or nobleness of the service and becomes something like — not actual or real, just like — a whore or prostitute whereas the intended parents become victims.
It is always the same thing. Once money gets into the picture, all the goodness goes out the window, even if there was no explicit mention by the surrogate but the intent is already there. In addition, the acceptance of money may or has a high probability of eventually and consequently leading to commercialization of her surrogacy.
It is an entirely different story or situation if or when the intended parents decide to “reward” the surrogate with financial gains without her knowledge. Furthermore, the surrogate may or may not accept the money but either way, there was no prior intention to sell her services.
All in all, it is still best to do things for others out of the goodness of one’s heart. Money spoils everything.
TaN: Only things that are in the common good (or public domain) are valuable; everything else is worthless. The true value of anything is in the utility; goods and assets that are intended for appreciation or its aesthetics merely have superficial or endowed value. Intrinsic value is true value and it only comes from a thing’s usefulness. And this is how needs and wants are fundamentally differentiated.
Things that are useful only to oneself (or a few) do not possess much value because other people will either have no use for it or access may be restricted or limited and this means (in which case, it implies that such things will not be used to their full potential or utility). In other words, the value of a thing or good/commodity is proportional to its wide or range and its frequency of utility.
Given this, things in the common good or public domain will normally be or have the highest value, and consequently, those having no value are what are considered trash or garbage and discarded. Moreover, it is possible — although it is not always the case — that value can diminish, as in the case of damage or consumption or when the condition no longer exists which created the need and therefore the value. In this instance, value is temporary and is not real or true, for real value is universal and lasting or permanent.
We value something only because we find it useful or meaningful, which explains garbage or waste, although there is the saying, One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. In this case, value is relative or subjective to every individual. However, there are things that have universal value and these are (common) needs, like air, water, and land.
Finally, there are valuable things or goods but their utility are restricted — which should not be the case but that is the reality. They are usually caused by our observance or acceptance of the idea of private property. Private property restricts or deprives utility while maintaining value and this is not good. It is an affront to all who need but cannot due to private ownership.
(Please note that private property is not to be equated to personal property. The restriction or limitation set by the former is arbitrary and deprivative while the latter is borne of necessity and (often) hygiene. To illustrate, a book can be private property but a toothbrush is personal property.)
TaN: Just like everything else, in this temporal and highly subjective world of man — and not the objective universe and nature — there is no “one size fits all”. A case in point would be democracy. Democracy is just one of the different forms of political self-governance systems, just like totalitarianism and others.
Democracy is ideal for societies, cultures, and countries that are mature (and responsible) — i.e., their citizenry or populace — whereas totalitarianism (or dictatorships) are good for the other extreme (i.e., immature, irresponsible peoples or non-critical thinkers). It is logical that authoritarianism is ideal or apt for less mature people in order to (somehow) “ensure” proper and ethical behavior and, in fact, the best form of government is benevolent dictatorship — which is what is in Heaven.
In truth, democracy is “cumbersome” only when there is too much bureaucracy due to too many rules and regulations because the people are not mature enough to behave without some kind of penalty or sword of Damocles hanging over their heads whenever they misbehave. In a mature and responsible society, rules and regulations are redundancies and prove to be obstacles to speedy and smooth services by and from government.
Moreover, even with a mature and responsible society and under democracy, the size of the population is a significant factor in the efficient delivery of government services and benefits. Remember that the term “democracy” implies that rule or governance of the people is direct as compared to republicanism which is also by the people but through representatives. So, should the population size is too large, this makes direct governance virtually impractical, if not impossible.
In either situations, it is important to note that large populations are prone to corruption and there tend to be no true representation of the will of the people. This is because the governing hierarchy or bureaucracy will have to be proportionally large(r) to effectively address and provide for the services and needs of the population — unless powers and functions (and services) are devolved to the local sub-units instead of being concentrated at the top echelon. To have a smaller bureaucracy would be an injustice to the people — of course, with the exception of the proper and effective use of technology (plus the (full) cooperation of the every individual).
However, should there be devolution of duties and responsibilities, there is bound to be redundancy (or replication of certain assets and material resources) which will be a waste, unless the redundant material resources are shared or loaned to other local sub-units while they are idle or unused.
Finally, it will take a very mature and responsible population — from the youngest to the eldest — to make democracy work (ideally) despite the inherent “weaknesses or drawbacks”.