Por Rabino Iosef Bitton *

¿Que es la Bioetica?

La medicina se encuentra en un constante progreso, tendiente a mejorar nuestra calidad de vida, evitar el dolor fisico y alargar nuestros anos. Pero involuntariamente cada avance medico nos enfrenta con nuevos dilemas Eticos que demandan una redefinicion de aquellos conceptos que siempre imaginamos claros.

Pensemos por ejemplo en lo que hoy se considera un “simple” transplante de corazon. Hace poco tiempo atras no se contaba con la tecnica adecuada para la conservacion y el reimplante de organos vitales. Tampoco existia una droga como la ciclosporina, que contribuye a impedir el rechazo del organo transplantado. Hasta que se invento un respirador artificial no fue necesario distinguir entre la muerte cerebral y la muerte cardiaca o respiratoria: ambas eran simultaneas!

Estos progresos medicos nos obligan a cuestionarnos por ejemplo: ¿Como se determina el momento de la muerte, a efectos de un transplante de corazon? Imaginemos a un individuo cuyo cerebro quedo danado irreversiblemente a raiz de un accidente de transito, pero su corazon continua palpitando, conectado a un respirador. ¿Consideramos a este individuo vivo o muerto? ¿Se permite extraer su corazon a fin de transplantarlo a un paciente que lo necesita?

En otras palabras, la muerte ¿es una funcion de la inactividad cerebral o de la respiratoria?

En el otro extremo Etico-semantico otras definiciones esperan su turno. ¿Cuando comienza la vida? ¿Desde el momento de la concepcion? ¿Al nacer? Dadas las facilidades tecnologicas para asistir a la mujer en su embarazo ¿Se considera homicidio el descarte de embriones? ¿A partir de que dia?

Conflictos como estos son tema de discusion y polemica permanente en nuestro mundo moderno. No pasa practicamente una semana sin que se publique un articulo sobre estos topicos en los periodicos de cualquier pais civilizado.

La nueva disciplina que estudia, analiza y trata de brindar opiniones y puntos de vistas acerca de estos conflictos se denomina Bioetica, o sea, la Etica de la vida. Cientos de articulos se publican por ano y un buen muestreo podriamos encontrar en las paginas electronicas del Internet.

Medicos, profesores universitarios, abogados, filosofos, religiosos de todas las confesiones, educadores y hombres que se interesan en estos temas debaten, opinan y aporta cada cual su punto de vista enriqueciendo asi esta nueva area multidisciplinaria.

Ahora bien, como judios que nos regimos por una ley divina y eterna, ¿Donde encontraremos las respuestas teoricas o practicas para estos complicados dilemas morales?

La Halaja

La Halaja es el cuerpo normativo de la vida judia. Es la puesta en practica de todos los preceptos biblicos y las prescripciones rabinicas expuestas en el Talmud. La Halaja se compone de normas, leyes y costumbres que rigen la vida del judio desde el nacimiento hasta la muerte, desde el alba de cada dia hasta el proximo amanecer.

La Halaja se ha desarrollado oralmente a partir de la aplicacion de los preceptos biblicos, pasando por la compleja literatura Talmudica y llegando a la responsa rabinica contemporanea.

Entre las obras halajicas mas trascendentes se encuentran el Mishne Tora, de Maimonides (1135-1205) que es el codigo halajico tematicamente mas abarcativo y el Shuljan Aruj, escrito por Rab Iosef Caro (1488-1575) que es el codigo convencionalmente oficial de la legislacion judia.

Existen tambien numerosisimas obras de responsa rabinica (Sheelot Utshubot, preguntas y respuestas) donde se determina la condicion Halajica de los mas diversos temas y circunstancias. Fuera de la Halaja no existe para el judaismo normativo ningun otro sistema Etico o moral. El judaismo no acepta la ley natural, ni la dudosa Etica cuantitativa. Mas aun, conicidiendo con la filosofia moderna, desde siempre sostuvo el judaismo que el hombre es por naturaleza incapaz de llegar a una definicion Etica universal y absoluta.

Por lo tanto cuando queremos buscar un criterio “Etico” judio es la Halaja y sus amplisimas fuentes donde debemos explorar a fin de encontrar una orientacion al respecto.

Los mecanismos de la Halaja

Hay dos principios importantes para la determinacion Halajica de un tema:

En primer lugar en casos nuevos, como los que queremos analizar, para los cuales obviamente no existe jurisprudencia rabinica ni Talmudica, los Rabinos legisladores contemporaneos (en hebreo Poskim) desarrollan sus veredictos en base al analisis comparativo de casos o principios legales similares que encuentran en la legislacion Halajica que los antecede. Para determinar su decision los Rabinos deben tomar en cuenta todos los criterios a favor y todos los puntos en contra.

En segundo lugar, en el judaismo actual, post talmudico no existe un cuerpo legislativo supremo oficial, como era el caso del Sanhedrin en la antiguedad (por cuya restitucion rezamos tres veces por dia). Cada Posek, por lo general, elabora su veredicto individualmente y es acatado por sus fieles, los cuales adoptan su opinion por la pertenencia comunitaria o su extraccion historica comun (Sefaradim, Ashkenazim etc.).

A veces varios Rabinos concuerdan con un mismo veredicto, y a veces no.

De aqui la dificultad de exponer una opinion Halajica unica e indiscutible {1}.

Problemas y soluciones

Como ejemplo del tratamiento Halajico de un tema medico con implicancias Eticas nos referiremos ahora al problema de la esterilidad.

Este articulo es de caracter descriptivo y no prescriptivo. Por lo tanto, dada la delicada naturaleza de estos temas, si se presenta una situacion real debera consultarse con una autoridad rabinica competente.

La esterilidad afecta a un promedio del 8 al 15% de las parejas casadas. De este numero alrededor del 30% se debe a la esterilidad del hombre. Las causas pueden ser varias: anomalias anatomicas en el organo de reproduccion masculino (hypospadias), impotencia psicologica u organica, o bien la debilidad o el numero reducido de espermatozoides. En todos estos casos se contempla la posibilidad de la inseminacion artificial con el semen del propio marido.

No obstante, hay otras circunstancias (aspermia, azoospermia, necrospermia, etc) donde el semen del marido no puede ser utilizado efectivamente. En estos casos los medicos suelen aconsejar la utilizacion del semen de otro individuo, por lo general a traves de un banco de semen.

La inseminacion es un metodo relativamente sencillo y para nada nuevo, en el cual se inyecta el semen en el cuello del utero o directamente en el utero de la mujer. El primer experimento exitoso de inseminacion artificial en animales data del ano 1742 y en seres humanos tuvo lugar a fines del siglo pasado por Robert Dikinson: en 1866 nace en los Estados Unidos el primer bebe por inseminacion artificial. Hoy en dia se calcula que solo en ese pais nacen anualmente miles de ninos por inseminacion artificial.

Precedentes a favor y en contra, se buscan

Si bien los sabios judios de la antiguedad discutieron acerca de la posibilidad teorica de la concepcion sin que medie relacion sexual (Masejet Jaguiga, 15a) el pronunciamiento directo respecto a la inseminacion artificial es, obviamente, reciente. Sobre el tema no existe un consenso total en todos los puntos. No obstante, la mayoria de los Poskim contemporaneos se inclina por autorizar la inseminacion artificial siempre y cuando se realice con el semen del propio marido.

Hay dos principios Halajicos basicos en favor del tratamiento de la infertilidad.

Ante todo el precepto biblico – el primero de la Tora – mencionado en Bereshit {2} “Peru uRbu”, “Fructificaos, multiplicaos y colmad la tierra”, dice el Creador a Adam y Eva . Precepto que la Halaja, por su parte, encuadra estrictamente dentro del marco familiar.

Otro criterio invocado a favor de este caso es el de Guemilut Jasadim (Obrar el bien) que deriva del famoso mandamiento que se menciona en Vaikra {3} “Amaras a tu projimo como a ti mismo”. De aqui la obligacion moral de asistir al semejante segun sus necesidades. Pocas circunstancias hay, tan nobles como ayudar a una pareja a realizarse como padres.

Por otro lado, existen ciertas complicaciones.

La primera que mencionan la mayoria de los Rabinos es la utilizacion de semen de un tercero, lo cual acarrea problemas de filiacion e identidad Halajica irresolubles. Por eso coinciden en prohibir la inseminacion artificial con el semen de otro hombre que no sea el propio marido.

En segundo lugar varias autoridades rabinicas temiendo un abuso de la utilizacion de este metodo estipulan que debe existir un tiempo de espera o el veredicto de al menos dos especialistas medicos que determinen la imposibilidad del embarazo natural y la efectividad del metodo, antes de apelar a la inseminacion {4}.Otro punto de controversia se relaciona con la extraccion del semen, ya que su derramamiento se considera en el judaismo una afrenta y los Rabinos que autorizan la inseminacion mencionan medios de obtencion lo mas cercano posible a lo natural {5}.

Mas soluciones medicas, mas complicaciones eticas

A traves de metodos tecnologicos desarrollados en las ultimas decadas es posible fecundar el ovulo femenino con semen masculino fuera del cuerpo de la mujer (in vitro, o sea, en un tubo de ensayo) para luego regresar el cigoto u ovulo fecundado al cuerpo de la madre, duena del ovulo, o congelarlo y mas adelante insertarlo en su cuerpo o en el de otra mujer. El cigoto, al ser reinsertado, se desarrolla como en un embarazo normal, aun cuando la madre portadora (embarazada) no sea la duena del ovulo original.

Por lo general, y a diferencia de la inseminacion artificial, la fecundacion in vitro se prescribe en casos de esterilidad femenina. Alrededor del 10% de las mujeres presentan problemas de esterilidad y un tercio de estos casos son causados por inconvenientes en las trompas de Falopio, que no pueden ser resueltos quirurgicamente. En Este y otros casos, como ser cantidad excesiva de anticuerpos contra antigenos presentes en el espermatozoide6 la fecundacion in vitro es la solucion. En 1978 nace en Inglaterra Louise Brown, la primera nina fecundada fuera del utero materno. La senora Brown sufria de agenesia (ausencia de trompas de Falopio), por lo cual le hubiera sido imposible concebir un hijo por medios naturales.

Otras dificultades...

Para la determinacion Halajica de este caso, los Poskim estan divididos. Por un lado los que la prohiben razonan que a los inconvenientes de extraccion del semen, tiempos de espera y otros mencionados en la inseminacion artificial se suman problemas adicionales. En este caso, dicen, cuando el intento de fecundacion no tiene Exito, el semen se considera derramado en vano, ya que, a diferencia de la inseminacion artificial, Este se utiliza fuera del cuerpo de la esposa. Ademas, agregan, al tratarse de una concepcion extrauterina, en su opinion no se cumple el precepto biblico de la reproduccion.

No obstante, numerosos Poskim autorizan la fecundacion in vitro bajo las mismas premisas exigidas para la inseminacion artificial, y consideran que tambien a traves de este metodo se concreta el primer mandamiento de la Tora.

La principal complicacion se presenta en el alquiler de vientre, metodo que los Poskim coinciden en prohibir. En un caso comun de fecundacion in vitro los padres biologicos son los padres naturales de la criatura. Pero que sucede cuando una mujer (A) que no puede llevar adelante su embarazo apela al vientre de otra mujer (B) para dar a luz a su hijo, concebido in vitro. ¿Quien es la madre en este caso? ¿Es la duena del ovulo (A) o la que dio a luz (B) al bebe? Los dos elementos naturales de la maternidad, la concepcion y el parto, aqui se oponen uno al otro. ¿Como saber cual de estos dos elementos es el determinante excluyente de la maternidad?

¿Y quien es el padre? ¿El padre biologico o el esposo de la senora (B)?

Por todos estos conflictos de filiacion los Poskim no autorizan este metodo. (Aunque por otro lado continuan avanzando en su analisis juridico para determinar el status a posteriori.) Cabe destacar que las causas Halajicas de esta prohibicion son ciertamente pragmaticas. A diferencia de otras religiones la oposicion no se basa en conceptos relacionados a la antinaturalidad del metodo. En el judaismo nunca se adopto la postura que critica la intervencion del hombre o la tecnologia por El creada en procesos naturales. Por el contrario, el ser humano es el socio de D”s en la creacion y el mejoramiento del mundo y todo lo que este en su posibilidad hacer para mejorar la naturaleza es loable que lo realice.

Conclusiones

En la medida que la ciencia avanza, la Halaja a traves de los Poskim, debera pronunciarse en temas como clonacion humana, gestacion con fines de ablacion, gestacion en vientre mecanico, y quien sabe que otras complejas tecnicas medicas y geneticas.

Nada nos lleva a pensar que los proximos anos seran mas sencillos para la bioetica y la Halaja. Pero a traves de los fascinantes mecanismos de la ley judia, las brillantes mentes de sus expositores continuaran explorando nuestras fuentes en busca de las respuestas que tanto necesitamos.

Nuetas

{1} - Las opiniones halajicas vertidas en este articulo han sido tomadas de la Enciclopedia de Halaja y Medicina (Enciclopedia Hiljatit Refuit, Dr Abraham Shteimberg, Tomo Bet, v.Hazraa Melajutit y Hafraia Melajutit).

{2} - GEnesis 1, 22

{3} - Levitico 19, 18

{4} - Tzitz Eliezer, 9,51`

{5} - En este caso, al semen sobrante, se lo considera una casualidad natural como en una relacion matrimonial comun ya que al igual que en Esta se trata de un intento de procreacion.

* Rab. Iosef Bitton comenzo sus estudios rabinicos y academicos en la Yeshiva University de Nueva York. En 1985 recibio su Semija del Gran Rabinato de Israel y el mismo ano se graduo en la Universidad de Bar Ilan en Filosofia judia. Se desempeno como Rabino de la Comunidad Chalom y de la Comunidad Agudat Dodim, ambas en Buenos Aires. Finalizo su Licenciatura en Filosofia Judia. Curso su doctorado en la Universidad de Ben Gurion. Fue director del departamento de Bioetica de la Yeshiva Madait en Rishon Le Tzion, Hoy en dia es el gran Rabino de Uruguay.

One interesting point is:

Consistent with previous functional MRI studies of pain empathy with adults, the perception of other people in pain in children was associated with increased hemodymamic activity in the neural circuits involved in the processing of first-hand experience of pain, including the insula, somatosensory cortex, anterior midcigulate cortex, periaqueductal gray and supplementary motor area," Decety wrote.

However, when the children saw animations of someone intentionally hurt, the regions of the brain engaged in social interaction and moral reasoning (the temporo-parietal junction, the paracigulate, orital medial frontal cortices and amygdala) also were activated.

That is, children empathize with those suffering from 'natural evil' but have an additional response to cases of 'moral evil'. They respond morally.

I'm still in caffeine withdrawal, so, again, please forgive any grammatical errors.

Young-earth creationists have a distinct animosity towards SETI, for obvious reasons. The project is contrary to their whole understanding of biology, and it receives what probably looks to them like an obscene amount if money for an endeavor doomed to failure. This is understandable. However, when coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, it leads to intense hilarity. For some reason, Jonathon Safarti, author of the popular Answers in Genesis book Refuting Evolution, seems to be under the impression that there is an implicit conflict between the two ideas espoused by SETI that, on one hand, life can increase in complexity via evolution, and on the other, that complex signals are likely to have originated from an intelligence. Here's the quote:

People detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if we find arrowheads on a desert island, we can assume they were made by someone, even if we cannot see the designer. There is an obvious difference between writing by an intelligent person, e.g. Shakespeare’s plays, and a random letter sequence like WDLMNLTDTJBKWIRZREZLMQCOP. There is also an obvious difference between Shakespeare and a repetitive sequence like ABCDABCDABCD. The latter is an example of order, which must be distinguished from Shakespeare, which is an example of specified complexity. We can also tell the difference between messages written in sand and the results of wave and wind action. The carved heads of the U.S. presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features. Again, this is specified complexity. Erosion produces either irregular shapes or highly ordered shapes like sand dunes, but not presidents’ heads or writing. Another example is the SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). This would be pointless if there were no way of determining whether a certain type of signal from outer space would be proof of an intelligent sender. The criterion is, again, a signal with a high level of specified complexity—this would prove that there was an intelligent sender, even if we had no other idea of the sender’s nature. But neither a random nor a repetitive sequence would be proof. Natural processes produce radio noise from outer space, while pulsars produce regular signals. Actually, pulsars were first mistaken for signals by people eager to believe in extraterrestrials, but this is because they mistook order for complexity. So evolutionists (as are nearly all SETI proponents) are prepared to use high specified complexity as proof of intelligence, when it suits their ideology. This shows once more how one’s biases and assumptions affect one’s interpretations of any data.

I don't see how one can write two books concerning the scientific validity of evolution and not understand natural selection. Perhaps it was simply a moment of confusion. But regardless of why it's been set forth, it has. The error is here: there is no natural selection process that drives signals towards complexity. They don't reproduce in the same way that organisms do, there's no incentive for them to develop greater complexity in order to better survive. Therefore, the overwhelming probability is that a complex signal was created by an intelligence. The same applies for sand dunes. If sand dunes in forms that resembled presidential heads could better survive the ravages of time, then they would most likely be in these forms. Sadly, they don't, and therefore, none are known to have formed via natural processes. This is also applicable to arrowheads and cars. Seriously, guys, if you're going to write about evolution, please understand its basic premise.

Οι γυναίκες θα είναι σε θέση να γενούν στην ηλικία των 100 ετών λόγω της προόδου που συντελείτε στις θεραπείες γονιμότητας, κατά τις επιστημονικές προβλέψεις.

Μέσα σε τρεις δεκαετίες, γυναίκες κάθε ηλικίας, από παιδιά μέχρι ηλικιωμένες, θα μπορούν να συλλαμβάνουν με επιτυχία καθώς εξαλείφεται αποτελεσματικά η στειρότητα.

Επιστήμονες υποστηρίζουν ότι οι εξελίξεις στην τεχνολογία γαμετών (γεννητικών κυττάρων) κατά την οποία κύτταρα του δέρματος χρησιμοποιούνται για τη δημιουργία ωαρίων και σπερματοζωαρίων που μετά συνδυάζονται για να δημιουργηθούν ανθρώπινα έμβρυα, σύντομα θα επιτρέπουν στις γυναίκες να ξεκινούν την οικογένειά τους σε οποιαδήποτε στιγμή της ζωής τους.

Η τεχνολογία είναι ακόμη υπό έρευνα, αλλά οι βιολόγοι πιστεύουν ότι θεραπείες βασισμένες στη χρήση κυττάρων του δέρματος που ονομάζονται επαγόμενα πολυδύναμα αρχέγονα κύτταρα - iPS (ένα είδος βλαστικών κυττάρων) θα μπορούσαν να αντικαταστήσουν την εξωσωματική γονιμοποίηση.

Οι γονείς θα είναι σε θέση να διαλέγουν «σχεδιασμένα» μωρά, επιλέγοντας το τέλειο παιδί τους βασισμένοι σε χαρακτηριστικά όπως το χρώμα των μαλλιών, το ύψος, τη νοημοσύνη και γονίδια απαλλαγμένα από ασθένειες.

Η πρόβλεψη, όπως δημοσιεύτηκε στο περιοδικό Nature, έγινε από κορυφαίους επιστήμονες όταν κλήθηκαν να προβλέψουν τις εξελίξεις στην αναπαραγωγή μέχρι το 2038 σημαίνοντας τα τριακοστά γενέθλια της Louise Brown στις 25 Ιουλίου, το πρώτο μωρό του σωλήνα στον κόσμο.

Ο βιολόγος Davor Solter, του Ινστιτούτου Βιολογίας στην Σιγκαπούρη, δήλωσε: «Οι στόχοι μας θα παραμείνουν οι ίδιοι ως προς την προσπάθειά μας να δίνουμε παιδιά σε όσους δεν μπορούν να τα αποκτήσουν και να τα αφαιρούμε από όσους δεν τα επιθυμούν. Νομίζω πως η εξωσωματική γονιμοποίηση έχει φτάσει στα όριά της.

Έπειτα, αναμένω ότι γαμέτες, σπερματοζωάρια και ωάρια, θα παράγονται με επιτυχία από τα επαγόμενα πολυδύναμα αρχέγονα κύτταρα, κύτταρα που έχουν τη δυνατότητα να αναπτύσσονται σε οποιοδήποτε τύπο κυττάρου του σώματος.

Θα είναι δυνατή η δημιουργία επαγομένων πολυδύναμων αρχέγονων κυττάρων από κύτταρα δέρματος, η μετατροπή τους σε γαμέτες και ο συνδυασμός τους για τη δημιουργία ανθρώπινων εμβρύων.

Αυτό σημαίνει ότι κάθε γυναίκα ανεξάρτητα της ηλικίας της θα μπορεί να έχει παιδιά, νεογέννητα κορίτσια και εκατοντάχρονες θα μπορούν να έχουν παιδιά.

Εύκολα θα μπορούσε να συμβεί στα επόμενα 30 χρόνια.»

Άλλα βήματα που οραματίζονται για τα επόμενα 30 χρόνια περιλαμβάνουν την κύηση σε τεχνητή μήτρα, τη διάθεση οικονομικής εξωσωματικής γονιμοποίησης στα 70€ τον κύκλο και το πιο αμφιλεγόμενο θέμα τη δημιουργία εμβρύων για πειραματικούς σκοπούς.

Τα επόμενα χρόνια, οι επιστήμονες πιστεύουν ακόμη ότι ο κόσμος θα παγώνει κύτταρα από μικρή ηλικία, κάτι που ήδη γίνεται από κάποιες εταιρίες, για την αποφυγή και θεραπεία ασθενειών σε μεγαλύτερες ηλικίες.

Ο κύριος Solter πρόσθεσε: «Σήμερα δεν είναι δυνατά τα πειράματα με ανθρώπινα έμβρυα επειδή θεωρείται ηθικά απεχθές - και επειδή είναι δυσεύρετα.

Εάν ήταν δυνατή η καλλιέργεια εμβρύων όπως κάθε άλλης κυτταρικής σειράς, το πρόβλημα θα εξαφανίζονταν.

Θα σήμαινε ότι θα μπορούσαμε να εισάγουμε κάθε είδους γενετικών τροποποιήσεων. Οι κυτταρικές σειρές θα μπορούσαν να χρησιμοποιηθούν για τη διόρθωση μεταλλάξεων ή το σχεδιασμό βελτιώσεων και να χρησιμοποιούνται για τη δημιουργία μεταλλαγμένων εμβρύων για ερευνητικούς σκοπούς.

Θα γίνονταν αντικείμενα και θα χρησιμοποιούνταν ως αντικείμενα.

Δεν έχω την παραμικρή ιδέα για τις ηθικές αξίες ή δικαιώματα που θα δίναμε σε αυτά τα έμβρυα.

Στην αρχή θα είναι τρομερό, αλλά ύστερα θα γίνει πραγματικότητα της ζωής.»

Δημοσιεύοντας στο περιοδικό Nature, ο Zev Rosenwaks, διευθυντής του Κέντρου Αναπαραγωγικής Ιατρικής και Στειρότητας στη Νέα Υόρκη δήλωσε: «Βλέπω την τεχνολογία να κινείται προς την πιθανή ολοκληρωτική εξάλειψη της στειρότητας.

Με την τεχνολογία μεταφοράς πυρήνα ή τη κυτταρική τροποποίηση, νομίζω πως θα ήμαστε σε θέση να δημιουργούμε σπερματοζωάρια και ωάρια για όλους.»

Αλλά ο πρωτοπόρος της εξωσωματικής γονιμοποίησης Alan Trounson που ηγείται του Ινστιτούτου Αναγεννητικής Ιατρικής της Καλιφόρνια στο Σαν Φρανσίσκο δήλωσε ότι η τεχνολογία βλαστικών κυττάρων θα προκαλέσει διαφωνίες σχετικές με την ασφάλεια και την ηθική της διεύρυνσης της γόνιμης περιόδου της γυναίκας πέρα από τα σχέδια της φύσης.

Συγκεκριμένα δήλωσε: « Νομίζω ότι θα είναι εφικτό να επεκτείνουμε τη γόνιμη περίοδο των γυναικών δημιουργώντας γαμέτες με την τεχνολογία iPS.

Νομίζω ότι θα συμβεί και θα εγείρει πολλά ηθικά ζητήματα γύρω από την ασφάλεια και τα παιδιά.

Θα δημιουργηθούν ανησυχίες σχετικά με τη διεύρυνση της γόνιμης περιόδου πέρα από τα φυσικά όρια. Νομίζω ότι ο κόσμος πρέπει να έχει την επιλογή»

Η Sally Russel, διευθύντρια του netmums, ενός on-line γκρουπ για μητέρες δήλωσε: «Νομίζω ότι είναι πολύ περίεργη η αίσθηση να γίνεται μια γυναίκα μητέρα στα 100 της.

Αναρωτιέμαι ποιος θα ήθελε να κάνει παιδί σε αυτή την ηλικία.

Οι επιστήμονες υποστηρίζουν ότι θα ζούμε περισσότερο αλλά υπάρχουν πολλά ηθικά ερωτήματα για τη θεραπεία γονιμότητας μιας γυναίκας ηλικίας 80 ή 90 και πλέον ετών.»

Ανησυχίες έχουν εκφράσει για την αύξηση των ορίων γονιμότητας και από ομάδες ακτιβιστών και φιλανθρωπικών οργανώσεων.

Μία εκπρόσωπος της φιλανθρωπικής οργάνωσης Life δήλωσε: «Είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι οι επιστήμονες θα μπορούν να δίνουν σε ηλικιωμένες τη δυνατότητα να γίνονται μητέρες, αλλά πρέπει να αναρωτηθούμε αν είναι σωστό να κάνουμε ότι δε μπορεί η μητέρα φύση.

Ολοφάνερα, η κοινή λογική υπαγορεύει ότι κάτι τέτοιο δε θα είναι προς το συμφέρον της μητέρας ή του παιδιού.»

Δ.

Conspire to grab God by the ankle and contain Him
So that we can run off and let loose in a wild orgy on the other side of the hill
Knock aside consideration of context with the barrell of a 12-gauge syntax

Hold fast to our cognitively concrete interpretation
At the expense of abundant life steeped in the infinite
We shed our clothes and drunkenly stumble into the backseat with Lucifer

Humanity has merely opened the cover of God’s cookbook
Yet we claim that we wrote it

There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christan hope of ‘Heaven’ ridiculous by saying they do not want ‘to spend eternity playing harps’. The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share His splendour and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of Heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it. People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs.
-Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis

Eating salmon will keep your cognitive abilities up and stave off mental illness

It's a cold Sunday night in Toronto in deep February. The weather is lousy, it's dark, and you feel miserable. Nothing to better cheer you up than some pasta aka "comfort food". We all know that certain foods do certain things to our mood, but what about to our brains? Brain Food can enhance our cognitive abilities, protect our brain from damage, and counteract the effects of aging as well as preserve our mental health. Read which foods make us smart and why in Food for Thought from The Economist.

You can do the same here (you have until July 25th).

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=178

"Graphene, which is as common as the flakes from your pencil when you write, is turning out to be the wonder material of the new millennium. A few years ago, researchers discovered its electrical properties, which make one-micron sheets of the stuff ideal for tiny computerized devices. Now a new study reveals that graphene may also be one of the strongest materials known to humans. It has a breaking strength of 55 newtons per meter. That means if you had a sheet of graphene that was the thickness of typical plastic wrap, it could support the weight of a 2000 kg car before breaking. Just to make things even more mega, graphene is also transparent. Ultra-thin, invisible body armor, here we come!"

[New Scientist] Image via Coderforfood.

The paper (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008) is a discussion of something the authors term "Assisted Colonisation"; a proposed conservation methodology which they suggest might well be applicable for the amelioration of some of the ecological impacts of climate change.

Most species can only persist within a relatively narrow range of physical conditions, often constrained within a certain geographical area. As physical conditions (for example, temperature) shift as a result of climate change, this area can shrink, or move (generally moving towards the poles). While some species may be able to physically move themselves to stay within their optimum conditions, others cannot (this might lead to ecosystems being 'torn apart' as different species in an ecosystem will be able to move at different rates). In any case, organisms will only survive if they are able to expand/shift their range into areas of otherwise suitable habitat. Furthermore, as the species move, they may meet areas of unsuitable habitat, at which point their range will begin to shrink.

The authors of the paper start by making the case that conventional conservation practices may not be sufficient to preserve species that are susceptible to this problem, and they offer up for consideration the possibility of 'assisted colonisation': in other words physically relocating species to suitable habitat which will be at a suitable temperature for them to survive. They recognise that deliberate species relocations have a long and dismal history, but maintain that it may be possible to identify species for which it is a suitable option. They propose a framework for assessing the suitability of this controversial idea, which I have included below.

It all seems very feasible and pragmatic, put like that.

However, there are some problems beyond the obvious ones concerning introducing species into habitat where they were not originally present. I'm going to focus on the marine examples the authors cite, because they're right in my area. But first, it is worth mentioning what looks like an obvious flaw in their thinking. Theirs is very much a single species-oriented approach..... which seems to me to be a problem. Species do not exist in an ecological vacuum. Unless you're very lucky, and find habitat elsewhere that is perfectly suitable but lacks the target species (which might occur in situations where a species range has fragmented and other areas of suitable habitat exist), then that's all very well. But it seems likely that populations transposed in isolation might not fare well. By extracting them from their natural range you're causing the very problem that we want to avoid: tearing apart an ecosystem. Really, you'd need to transplant a whole slice of ecosystem, somehow preserving all the linkages between species. Excuse me if I find that impractical.

They also make a suggestion about using artificial reefs to facilitate the shift in range of rocky reef species (which would otherwise be blocked by the lack of suitable hard substrate): "It might be practical, at small scales, to establish artificial, three-dimensional reef structures ahead of migrating coral, fish, and invertebrate species". Well, "small scales" is exactly right! The logistical requirements of provision of sufficient artificial hard habitat for this to be effective boggle the mind. The best hope would be to use decommissioned oil platforms (I'll be getting to that in later posts!) to provide new habitat, but even that (a huge endeavour) is likely to make a hopelessly small contribution to the requirement for new habitat. And of course the other problem, paradoxically, is that it might work too well! It is becoming recognised that artificial structures (such as seawalls) can act as invasion corridors for alien species (Bulleri and Airoldi 2005), so by providing a handy way for invasive species to expand their range we might be making things worse in other habitats!

Another possible technique the authors mention is transplanting widespread species 'within their range'. The idea behind this is that where you have locally adapted populations, you could transplant individuals from lower latitudes (with better heat tolerance) to higher latitudes, where the existing populations are threatened by rising temperatures. Well, for starters you've got to be sure that the differences between the heat tolerances of the two populations are inherited, and not due to phenotypic plasticity (where individuals with no genetic difference for a particular characteristic develop differently when they grow in different conditions). The example they use is a curious one: Acropora corals. However, the paper they cite in support (Berkelmans and van Oppen 2006) shows that the variation in heat tolerance is not due to genetic differences between populations, but due to differences in the composition of the zoozanthellae within their tissues. Perhaps this is a minor quibble, as the differences may still technically be inherited, but I can't help but feel it illustrates the point I made above: we need to be really sure that the differences are genuinely heritable, or your costly and complex transplant endeavour is going to be a complete waste of time.

These are some of the reasons that I am wary of this approach. In order for it to be successful, and to avoid any unwanted negative effects, we would need an extremely detailed understanding of the ecology of the species involved, so that we can with relative certainty predict how they will respond to transplant, and how other species might be effected. I suspect that there are few, if any, species or ecosystems for which we have that level of understanding.

Nevertheless, the authors do acknowledge some of these problems, and we can't necessarily afford to dismiss this approach out of hand. Climate change will prevent numerous challenges to ecosystems, and we need as many different tools as possible to ameliorate any impacts we are unable (or unwilling) to prevent. In any case, any attempt at 'assisted colonisation' will have to be very carefully considered: will the possibility of saving a crucial species ever prove worth the risk of making things worse in existing habitats?

Refs:

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Hughes, L., McIntyre, S., Lindenmayer, D. B., Parmesan, C., Possingham, H. P. & Thomas, C. D. 2008. ECOLOGY: Assisted Colonization and Rapid Climate Change. Science, 321, 345-346. DOI:
10.1126/science.1157897

Bulleri, F. & Airoldi, L. 2005. Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp tomentosoides, in the north Adriatic Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 1063-1072. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01096.x

Berkelmans, R. & van Oppen, M. J. H. 2006. The role of zooxanthellae in the thermal tolerance of corals: a 'nugget of hope' for coral reefs in an era of climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273, 2305-2312. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3567

]]> http://junkdrawer67.wordpress.com/?p=364 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:55:04 +0000 sonnypi67 http://junkdrawer67.wordpress.com/?p=364 Great show today on Talk of the Naction Science Friday about utilizing solar power in this country. 

Energy prices remain high, with a barrel of crude oil selling for well over $130. But thousands of megawatts of solar generated power might not see the light of day if Congress doesn't act soon.

Both parties in Congress agree that we need solar and wind power but they can't stop bickering long enough to renew tax credits for the industry.

We could build a solar power plant in Nevada that would provide enough electricty to every home in this country, and on a portion of land that is but a fraction of the size of the amount of land that is already in lease to but not in use by the gas and oil companies, but we lack political will.

You want to know what this country is fucked up. Congress is a bunch of do nothings. And greedier fuckers like those in the oil industry are strangling progress to that they can control the engery market and make a shit load of money. To buy their way out of hell I suppose, but who knows really.

If congress does not renew investment in the solar and wind engery industry, some 39,000 jobs will be lost and more than $1 billion in investment lost.

For the seven votes for these tax credits John McCain has never voted and so essentially voted NO every singly time. Meanwhile Obama has voted yes 5 times and not voted twice.

A new vote is expected next week and hopefully the parties can get their shit together. Of course, I can't help thinking - Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fill up first.

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes.
Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be
persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a
moment.

The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake. I don’t remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our

leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of thenational security threat from an “energy tsunami” that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil.

(Afraid Yet?)
The rest of the speech or propaganda here

What are Al Gores friends saying?

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
-
Professor Maurice
King

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land."
- David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
- Prof
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
- United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

"One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes.
This is a terrible thing to say.  In order to stabilize world
population,we must eliminate  350,000 people per day. It is a
horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."
-
Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

"The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing."
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
-
David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Al's friends talk about Global Warming

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's
imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any
doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

"It
doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of
Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of
global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms
of  economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

Al's friends talk about democracy

"The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
-
UN Commission on Global Governance report

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
-
Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to
the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."
-
Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General,

"Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance
from local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself."
- UN
Commission on Global Governance

The Green Agenda

Still worried about CO2?

The UN is using the harmless, necessary to life on earth, gas, to push for NWO. Think your govt. sucks?
Wait until your country is run by the unelected.

Why don't you get this information from your news sources?

....."it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the
world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those
years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march
towards a world government …”
- David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media
for keeping secret for decades the movement of the prophetic one world
government.
Source

If you only read on thing this year, or ever, read and understand The Green Agenda

Enjoy the day-the future looks very intersesting

"In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Now think about this for a minute. This finding obviously does not eliminate the possibility that global warming is real - but it does strongly imply that human activities have nothing to do with it. The mentioned planets and moons have one thing in common - the sun.

This dovetails nicely with those curves I’ve seen plotted of the temperature variations across millions of years, derived from ice core studies.

I’d like to point out that there is not much within our current technology we can do to influence the output of the sun; at most, we may find a way to deflect more of it from earth.

All this hoopla about greenhouse gasses is, well, just so much methane... Poor Al Gore.

-Popgun

I visit their website quite a bit which caused me to stumble on something very obnoxious. The American Institute of Physics can be located at their website aip.org. However if you happen to use the standard dot com, it takes you to a very different site. aip.com (Adventures in Prophecy) is an evangelical christian ministry in which you will

learn exciting topics like:

• Can the Bible really predict the future?
• What is the real truth about the rapture?
• Who is the beast of Revelation 13?
• What is his Mark? and...
• Where will the Battle of Armageddon be held?

I'll be honest, when I typed AIP into my search bar, those questions weren't on my mind. At the time I was looking up more information on the recent discovery of a tetraquark.

I have to wonder whether these was really coincidental. AIP is merely an acronym and there are a lot of different possible phrases or titles it could stand for. Then again, if you are trying to reach a wide audience with your site, wouldn't something like "BiblicalProphecy.com", "PropheticAdventures.net" or even "PastorRicsSuperFantasticJesusEmporium.org" be a more marketable site?

It really wouldn't suprise me in the least if this group was merely trying to convert all those people who accidentally filter through their site while attempting to get some real answers from an online physics journal. After all, who needs jeebus more than those heathen scientists with their test tubes, their particle accelerators and other such blasphemous tools of Satan.

Crap. Wrong kind of number one ...
According to a weighty government survey, the South is (once again) the portliest part of the good ol' US of A.

DANGIT SOUTHERN PEOPLE!!!!
Can we please be number one for something positive?!?
ACK!!!

Maybe I'm overreacting.
After all, the findings are pretty much the same as they were in each of the the three previous years this fat-finding mission was performed.
::: hooray for artery-clogging consistency?!? :::

Mississippi, the perpetual red-headed stepchild of America, has reigned as Queen Supreme Pudgie Pot every year since 2004. But the rest of the region got surprisingly supersized and now the competition is ON!

Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia and Louisiana all embraced their inner backfat and have been bringin' the chunk harder than ever!
Collectively, these four fatties have made so much peace with being obese that there's almost nothing that sets them apart from Mississippi when it comes to the all important fat stat.
::: heavy thigh :::

Making up the 'Top Ten Most Ginormous and Jiggliest States' are:
1. Mississippi, now with 32.0% more lardass
2. Alabama, showing a sizeable 30.3 % bigger spare tire
::: You are my Heart of Dixie!! Just a little more bacon and you can be Number One, girlfriend!! :::
3. Tennessee, showing 30.1% heavier thunder thighs
4. Louisiana, packing 29.8% more junk in the trunk
5. West Virginia, with a whopping 29.5% bigger deep-fried backside
6. Arkansas, proudly packin' on 28.7% more blubber butt
7. South Carolina, balancing picnic plates on 28.4% bigger buddha bellies
8. Georgia, cramming cookies into 28.2% chunkier cheeks
9. Oklahoma, outdoing itself with 28.1% more Oreo eating
10. Texas, bringing up a fabulously fattier rear with it's 28.1% more flabtastic weigh-in

'Experts' think the traditional Southern diet -- high in fat and fried food -- may be partly to blame.
::: Oh yes! Finally - a CLUE!!! :::

Another Bacon Doughnut Egg Burger, Belva?

Why do humans cooperate in things as diverse as environment conservation or the creation of fairer societies, even when they don’t receive anything in exchange or, worst, they might even be penalized? This is a question that has puzzled academics for centuries, especially since in evolution the basis for the “survival of the fittest” is, after all, selfishness.

But in an article just published in the journal Nature, three Portuguese theoretical physicists develop a mathematical model capable of providing a way out from this conundrum through the introduction of social diversity - a ubiquitous characteristic of modern social networks - and suggesting that that the act of cooperation is dependent on one’s social context/ranking.

And in fact, when social diversity was taken into account the numbers of those cooperating increased in direct relation to the system diversity. Furthermore, cooperation, according to this model, spreads even faster when the act of cooperation is considered more important than the amount given, with these societies presenting also a much fairer distribution of wealth. This new mathematic model for society’s evolution is particularly interesting because not only it reveals a logic behind the large numbers of cooperators that we know exist in all human societies, but also it gives us a glimpse of the principles that can help “pushing” them into a better, fairer, path.

Evolutionary game theory is a mathematical approach used to study (and predict) the evolution of social interactions, in which the study of conflict and decision-making is treated -– as its name indicates -– as a game. One such example are public good games (or PGG), which are frequently used to study cooperation as they look into social behaviour towards public goods -- such as education, free health or even street lightning –- those that every one can benefit from, regardless of how much they contribute (or not) to create it.

Here because the individual’s benefits are independent of his/her contribution the most rational and selfish strategy (both in the games and real life) is [for each individual - LG] to choose no-cooperation, which we know does not happen in real life. This is a good example of how difficult it has been to understand and create a theoretical model capable of explaining the emergence and prevalence of cooperation not only among humans but many other species.

What Jorge M. Pacheco and Marta D. Santos (University of Lisbon, Portugal) did - together with Francisco C. Santos (Free University of Brussels, Belgium) - in order to overcome this apparent paradox, was to introduce into PGG, for the first time, a new variant – social diversity – in contrast to the models previously used in which all individuals were equivalent. Social diversity here refers to the characteristics typical of most social networks: the existence of individuals with different numbers and types of social connections, with few very highly connected and most with very few connections.

Since PGG are represented as a mathematical formula, diversity was introduced as a new variable in the equation. Then Santos, Santos and Pacheco used this new altered formula to calculate the percentage of collaborators in the community, in function of population diversity (in PGG this would refer to the number and type of games each individual participated or, in other words, his/her “popularity”). And in fact, it was found, that in populations with high diversity, as diversity increased also did collaboration levels.

The way PGG work is that each individual pays a certain amount to play (defectors play but do not pay/cooperate) and in the end profit, which is the total amount gathered in a game, is divided by all players. The reason why diversity increased cooperation had to with the fact that those few individuals with more connections and playing more games (the cooperators) would also have much higher “profits” and their impressive success would lead the other players to imitate their behaviour (even when the behaviour per se did not seem to improve directly their own life) resulting in an exponential increase of cooperation. In the same way, in real life the more connected/popular individuals are emulated, becoming role models and opinion makers.

Equally the model also predicted that even when no-cooperators lead to new no-cooperators (as it happens many times in real life where this kind of behaviour can spread within groups) this will result in less profit, less success and eventually their own self-extinction with only a few sporadic ones left to parasite cooperators.

Furthermore, it was also shown that the increase in cooperation was particularly accelerated when all individuals contributed to the games with the same total contribution, independently of the number of games played. This corresponds, in real life, to saying that if the act of contributing to the public good was seen as more important than the amount contributed, the percentage of collaborators in a community would grew much faster.

Interestingly, the model, when applied in a more economical perspective, also suggests that these communities, with high diversity and where the act of cooperation is what matters, will also have a much fairer wealth distribution.

In conclusion, social relations, in this case differences in “popularity”, tested when introduced into PGG , are suggested to be crucial for the spread of cooperation throughout society.

Although this is obviously a very simple mathematical model and reality will never be as linear, Santos, Santos and Pacheco’s results gives us a total new perspective on how to look at ways of increasing cooperation/altruism and, consequently, also on how to create more successful societies, concerning issues as crucial to our survival as the protection of the environment or fairer social relationships, contributing in this way to the construction of a more peaceful world with less conflict and destruction.

---

Journal reference:

1. Francisco C. Santos, Marta D. Santos & Jorge M. Pacheco. Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature, 2008; 454 (7201): 213 DOI: 10.1038/nature06940