The other day, some friends introduced me to their newborn baby. The experience opened my eyes anew to the wonder of human growth and potential. Our futures are not set in stone.

A newborn baby certainly has encoded characteristics such as the physical aspects of race. The child’s genetics and prenatal experiences will influence personality and health. Nationality, family and birth order are already determined.

To a newborn baby, however, none of these characteristics has any meaning. Physical characteristics such as gender and eye color have no context in which to operate. Social connections and position do not yet exist to someone who cannot yet recognize a face. There is no wealth, no power and only the barest, early traces of personality in a newborn. Everything else is still raw, unshaped potential.

As we grow from infancy to adult, it is the interaction of genetics and circumstances that determines how our human potential develops. These interactions are all shaped and governed by people. At first, our families are the ones who influence and provide meaning to our lives. They provide for or fail to provide for our needs. They teach us what it means to be human, they distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and they provide us with a foundation on how to interact with other people. Over time, the family’s role in shaping us fades more into the background as the rest of society takes an increasing role. Teachers, religious institutions, the media and peers all contend with parents for influence in shaping our lives, until we ourselves as adolescents emerge as individuals and begin truly to make decisions for ourselves. It is this capacity to make one’s own decisions on values and behavior that separates adults from children, and it is how we make those decisions that reveals our character.

What we tend to forget, however, is that we are always still that newborn baby, consisting of nothing but potential. Yes, we have characteristics because of our pasts and our DNA, but those only have meaning if we give it to them. We always have the option to be reborn – to set aside the teachings and determinations provided by parents and culture, and to find new ways to interpret the circumstances of our lives. We do not have to be who others say we are; as adults, we have the power to make our own decisions. We do not have to follow the paths provided to us; we can go in new directions and can establish new paths for others to follow.

In more pragmatic terms, as adults, we have the power to look at the institutions and attitudes in our lives, and to either accept them, reject them, change them or replace them. In fact, if we live in a free and open society, we have the responsibility to examine these systems and to adjust them as necessary. As adults, we decide the values we hold, and we choose how to express those values in our businesses, our government, our religious practices and our arts. We do not have to mimic what we have inherited from our parents; we have the ability and power to build new ways of living that are more true to our chosen values. We are adults. We make our own decisions. We are born with endless potential, and that potential is still here. We can become whomever we want to be.

[CNN News]  Google co-founder Sergey Brin on Friday said he’s optimistic that his search engine will not have to pull out of China over hacking and censorship issues.

Brin maintained that his Mountain View, California, company never entered China to make money. He said Google wanted to spread information.

“Perhaps people don’t believe this, but throughout all of the discussions of entering China our focus has really been what’s best for the Chinese people,” he said. “It’s not been about our revenue or profit or whatnot.”

He said the company will not continue to politically censor search results in China, which is one of the world’s largest markets for the Internet. But he did say that Google would agree to censoring pornography and other potentially objectionable material.

This particular story causes us to think about a much bigger issue: that of the unbiased spread of information. The Internet, coupled with search engines such as Google, has radically changed the way news events and other information is consumed by the public.

There are major consequences for this brick and mortar shift. On the one hand, the gatekeepers of the information industry, such as major daily newspapers and network TV anchors, have witnessed a dilution of their power in the delivery of news. On the other hand, this shift has resulted in an “opening of the gates” to a flood of information from any and every source — some trustworthy and some not trustworthy, but all with a bullhorn.

Much has been written about the demise of the major newspapers, which were once the pillars of their respective communities. Using news as their vehicle, they wielded political power that dictated the form and substance of the community. The economic fortunes of the newspaper families are the stuff of which legends are made. Today, those powered elite have been replaced by bloggers and Y-cams. Op-ed pieces have become the flavor of the day in print media, and “news shows” have taken stride to leave the anchor desk in the dust.

The unwary consumer, then, is left to do detailed searches in order to find the truth, because all of the news has become a point of view. The consumer must know whether what she or he is viewing or reading is from the neoconservative, theoconservative, economic conservative, conservative liberal, libertarian, social liberal, or anarcho-liberal point of view!

One of the greatest fears that people have always held was that their government would keep information from them. In a free democracy, the free and honest sharing of information (and news) is a cornerstone upon which the whole democratic system is built. People expect the information they receive to be accurate, objective and universal. The multi-faceted information products of today make it clear that what appears to be absolute truth in news is not, in fact, absolute truth — or news. It is, in fact, filtered through somebody’s point of view.

Emotional abuse is a major problem in our culture today, whether experienced in our private relationships or in our public discourse. From parents verbally and physically abusing their children to spouses abusing each other, our homes often are places of emotional scarring, rather than places of refuge and repose.

And what happens in our private domain gets mirrored in our public forum. We have all witnessed the shameful tension around the health care debate. That debate is no less vitriolic than the discourse around issues such as national security, the housing crisis, the national debt, education, and a host of other critical issues. While no one will debate the importance of these issues — or the passion that they deserve — what is sad, and even frightening, is the emotional abuse that we bring to our handling of these issues.

The character attacks (including racial assaults and even death threats) go far beyond healthy political discussion, and reach a level of emotional abuse at a mass group level.

Whether emotional abuse occurs at the family level or the mass group level, it stems from a struggle over power relationships. In our October 13, 2009 post, Why Do We Fight? we discussed the innate tendencies toward fighting to resolve conflict. Ultimately, we can stay stuck at this level, or we can choose to move to a new level of conflict resolution. It is the level that all the great masters tried to teach us: the way of Love.

Although this sounds simple — and it is — it is not easy. Embracing love as the way to resolve conflict is the most robust skill we can master. We must begin by mastering our own internal enemies (our ego), and along the way, being able to embrace the foibles of the other person — or group. When we truly know who we are, then we can accept others just as they are — without trying to change them.

We spend tremendous energy trying to change other people, which simply does not work. Even if a person is going to make changes, they will do so because they are ready to do so. Our inspiration may be one of many influences in their change process, but their change is a work of spirit — not our genius or judgment.

Rather than abusing each other, by tearing each other down, we need to spend all of the energy we can muster building each other up. My mother was a very wise person, although she was a high school drop-out. One of her very wise sayings was, “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” So many times I have learned to look for the good in everybody by forcing myself to say nothing until I had something good to say.

With the sheer volume of open greed that infests our society, each of us must educate ourselves in order to avoid the criminal and “barely legal” behavior of those who seek to take our wealth and names.  If you live in the U.S., a good place to look for guidelines and advice is your state attorney general’s office.  Our Google search of ten state attorney general offices (“[state] attorney general consumer”) found that each state had a web site full of consumer information.  They provided information on current scams and how to avoid them, accurate information on how to protect against identity theft, guidelines on what rights we have when faced with aggressive businesses, and instructions on what to do if we suspect theft or fraud.  Two of the states we examined, New York and Ohio, also offer free workshops to interested groups, and many counties offer similar programs through their sheriff’s departments.  Most states provide free brochures on a variety of fraud prevention topics.

Please use the information available to you to protect your name and livelihood; a small investment of your time today may make a vast difference in your future.  Please also use what workshops and brochures are available in your area to educate others, particularly the elderly, the poor, and children, so that those who prey upon others will have fewer victims to claim.  An economic crisis tends to bring out both the best and the worst in us.  Let us work together in compassion to limit the damage done by our baser natures during these trying times.

When J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattann Project, first witnessed the destructive power of the atomic bomb he helped to create, his reaction was a quote from the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”  Following the war, he worked tirelessly to limit the scope and spread of nuclear weapons.  Oppenheimer recognized that humanity’s progress in his discipline of physics had gotten far ahead of our development in ethics, and until we had created an ethical framework that could cope with our new found ability to exterminate ourselves, we were all in terrible danger.  The rarefied world of theoretical physics suddenly had to deal with the responsibility of how the technology it produces could be used.

In a similar way, the discipline of biology was both excited and nervous when Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996.  That breakthrough and the initial release of data from the Human Genome Project in 2000 has caused scientists in the field of genetics to face a time of ethical soul-searching that is similar to what the physicists dealt with in the mid-1900′s.  We now have the ability to genetically manipulate ourselves and the creatures around us; to what extent should we allow this manipulation to occur?  Both the benefits and the risks potentially affect all of life.  The scientific community and legislative bodies have therefore created rules to govern this new responsibility.

As technology continues to advance at faster and faster rates, many disciplines have had to face the ethical implications of their work.  Medicine has many ongoing ethical issues, such as abortion, euthanasia and health care availability.  Computer science struggles with issues of privacy and dehumanization.  Applied sciences such as agriculture and manufacturing must now consider the environmental and safety implications of their processes.  Educators and social agencies must consider how their projects will affect all categories of people.

What unites these threads together is the recognition (in the words of Stan Lee) that with great power comes great responsibility.  In a world where knowledge is power, where innovation can have a profound impact on millions or billions of lives, it is absolutely imperative for every discipline to undergo periods of ethical review.  We need to understand how our new capabilities affect humanity as a whole, and we must intentionally decide as a people whether the benefits of a new technology outweigh its risks.  For disciplines that affect us all, there need to be both internal standards and external supervision and regulation.

Recently, Columbia University professor Bruce Kogut proposed that those who create financial innovations must accept responsibility for the results of their creations.  This is a radically new idea in the world of finance, built upon a foundation laid by scientists over the past sixty-five years.  It is the same thought that ran through Oppenheimer’s mind when he realized the destructive potential of his creation.  It is no longer possible to pretend that our financial system exists in some kind of ethical vacuum.  Like Oppenheimer’s bomb, it has the demonstrated ability to harm millions or billions of people.  In fact, it is designed for the express purpose of benefiting a small group of people who understand the technology at the expense of the majority who do not understand it.  It is time for those who understand the financial system to deal with the ethical questions of how and when their creation should be used to benefit humanity as a whole.  It is also time for society at large, through our governments, to set clear and reasonable boundaries for how financial innovations may be employed.  We should allow financial innovators to benefit from their inventions, but not at the expense of the rest of humanity.  With great power comes great responsibility.

Tiger Woods, on his Web site Friday, admitted to infidelity and said he is taking "an indefinite break" from professional golf to focus on his family. This story is a major "water cooler" conversation. People love to gossip and render opinions about these kinds of situations. I have even heard news commentators suggest that we must "forgive" Tiger for what he has done. This is -- in part -- responding to his statement of contrition. Still, I find it amazing for me to think I have anything to forgive. After all, whatever did or did not happen is really a private matter between him and his wife. Whatever forgiveness there is to be done, must be done between Tiger's family, himself, and his God. I must stay clear of the situation. Too often, we spend an inordinate amount of energy and attention on weighing in on the private struggles of other families. This energy could be better spent in humility, recognizing that whenever a member of the family of humanity is weakened it points to the weakness of us all. My spiritual energy is best spent, therefore, in self-examination: what personal struggles -- spoken or unspoken -- should I be dealing with?

A resolution that has a list of ten covenants has been drafted by one of the U.S. political parties.  Each of its members must agree to at least eight of these covenants or be denied party support.  The requirement for concurrence with only eight out of ten is intended to show an allowance for diversity.  However, the entire notion of explicit standards for membership raises interesting questions about true allegiance.  Although almost all groups and societies have their creeds or organizing documents, it is not clear that written standards establish loyalty or belonging.

In the Christian faith, Jesus the Christ came along and challenged the Ten Commandments, which had long held the position of being the foundation of the faith.  Instead, he said, “If you love your creator and love all created ones just as you love yourself, you will have reached your goal.”

Anyone who has been in love knows that you cannot capture the qualities for love on a checklist.  Oh, you can write up a checklist, but when you meet the right person, you will throw the checklist out the window.  Why?  Because love in its essence cannot be captured on paper.  The energy that fuels and maintains love is not two-dimensional or even three-dimensional; it has more dimensions than could possibly be captured in physical space.

And so it is when we extrapolate people’s loyalty to a group.  The true essence of loyalty cannot be captured on two-dimensional paper or based on explicit standards.  If we try to reduce membership to such criteria, we miss the point.

Actual belonging — whether in a one-on-one relationship or in a larger group — is a function of the heart.  It happens at soul level.  That can never be put on paper.

Our third Question of the Week deals with economics.  As always, feel free to discuss other aspects of the issue that you feel are relevant, but are not mentioned here.

An economic system, by its nature, encourages and rewards some types of behaviors while discouraging others.  In so doing, it shapes the values of the people living within that system.  What values are rewarded by our current economic system, and are they consistent with what we claim to be our highest ideals?

Our second Question of the Week deals with health care. As before, feel free to discuss other aspects of the issue that you feel are relevant, but are not mentioned here.

The U.S. health care model is based upon treatment, with relatively little emphasis placed upon prevention. How do we encourage both health care professionals and the general public to take prevention more seriously? How do we provide the public with the tools and information they need to intelligently engage in preventing illness?

Rise of the Super-Rich Hits a Sobering Wall

by David Leonhardt and Geraldine Fabrikant
Friday, August 21, 2009

provided by

(excerpts)

The rich have been getting richer for so long that the trend has come to seem almost permanent.

They began to pull away from everyone else in the 1970s. By 2006, income was more concentrated at the top than it had been since the late 1920s. The recent news about resurgent Wall Street pay has seemed to suggest that not even the Great Recession could reverse the rise in income inequality.

But economists say — and data is beginning to show — that a significant change may in fact be under way. The rich, as a group, are no longer getting richer. Over the last two years, they have become poorer. And many may not return to their old levels of wealth and income anytime soon.

The relative struggles of the rich may elicit little sympathy from less well-off families who are dealing with the effects of the worst recession in a generation. But the change does raise several broader economic questions. Among them is whether harder times for the rich will ultimately benefit the middle class and the poor, given that the huge recent increase in top incomes coincided with slow income growth for almost every other group. In blunter terms, the question is whether the better metaphor for the economy is a rising tide that can lift all boats — or a zero-sum game.

Just how much poorer the rich will become remains unclear. It will be determined by, among other things, whether the stock market continues its recent rally and what new laws Congress passes in the wake of the financial crisis. At the very least, though, the rich seem unlikely to return to the trajectory they were on.

Bill Gates, Warren E. Buffett, the heirs to the Wal-Mart Stores fortune and the founders of Google each lost billions last year, according to Forbes magazine.

In one stark example, John McAfee, an entrepreneur who founded the antivirus software company that bears his name, is now worth about $4 million, from a peak of more than $100 million. Mr. McAfee will soon auction off his last big property because he needs cash to pay his bills after having been caught off guard by the simultaneous crash in real estate and stocks.

In 2007, Mr. McAfee sold a 10,000-square-foot home in Colorado with a view of Pike’s Peak. He had spent $25 million to buy the property and build the house. He received $5.7 million for it. When Lehman collapsed last fall, its bonds became virtually worthless. Mr. McAfee’s stock investments cost him millions more.

One day, he realized, as he said, “Whoa, my cash is gone.”

His remaining net worth of about $4 million makes him vastly wealthier than most Americans, of course. But he has nonetheless found himself needing cash and desperately trying to reduce his monthly expenses.

The Prayer Guarantee, which is showcased in the sidebar on the right, says this on page 77:

It’s all about value perception. All of our lives we have been

conditioned to place value on material things. We evaluate ourselves

and each other on the basis of material possessions. Look at the

overarching statement that we use to describe the most successful

people in our country. We will say that Mr. X is “worth” four

billion dollars! Our language has betrayed our true feelings…we

have literally said that Mr. X is “worth” the dollar value of his

accumulated assets minus his liabilities. We have not said his worth

is the number of grandchildren he has, or his years of marriage, or

how many smiles he caused on other people’s faces last year, or how

many sick people he has visited the last ten years….Perhaps there

was someone who was ready to commit suicide and he talked to

them and was an instrument in their recovery, but we don’t use that

to measure his worth. Our concrete, definitive way of measuring

people’s value is very clearly based on material assets.

Perhaps these challenging economic times provide all of us with a marvelous opportunity to examine our values. We can continue to hold on to things made of Teflon, or we can try to find something that is really permanent.

What is success? Really…