Last week an interesting concept was arrived at by myself and a small group of my friends. For the moment, this concept remains in the realm of science fiction, but I thought that from the immense amount of discussion it created between my little group that it might make a good topic here in the Cave.
The topic is Reverse Contraceptives, and it goes something like this.
One member of my group commented on how in certain countries everyone is assumed to be an organ donor - meaning, of course, that when they die, unless they've stated otherwise, that their organs will be donated to help others. Now, there's an easy opt-out for this, something like going somewhere akin to our Department of Motor Vehicles here in the States, and just signing a form saying you don't want to donate your organs. Therein lies the rub: most people don't opt out. In the countries where organ donation is simply assumed, the organ donation rate is phenomenally high, because people just don't want to think about it. They'd rather just stick to the "default settings" and not deal with it.
That got us thinking.
The idea of Reverse Contraception would go something like this: At birth, a simple procedure (that is as yet unavailable in the real world), something low-risk like a circumcision, would be performed on baby boys and girls. This procedure would make them effectively sterile.
Once these young people were 18 years of age, they could produce photo identification at any local drugstore or hospital and receive a "reverse contraception" pill for little or no money. If both the man and the woman were taking this "RC" pill, they could become pregnant.
Think about it.
The 18 year old minimum would effectively eliminate childhood pregnancy.
The notion that you couldn't get knocked up unless you put some thought into it, unless you and your partner were sure that it was what you really wanted, would drastically reduce the abortion rate, would drastically reduce the crime rate, would drastically reduce the poverty rate.
Are their problems with the idea? Of course. Who's in charge of the RC pill? Would it be mandatory that all children get the reverse contraception procedure at birth, or would it be a parental decision? Even if it was a parental decision, my opinion is that an overwhelming percentage of parents would "opt in" for it. If you could guarantee that your kid wasn't going to get pregnant until they were out of high-school... that's a pretty great motivator.
Anyway, I thought the concept warranted a little conversation. What do you think? Is a Reverse Contraception pill a great idea, or something that infringes on human rights? Do we have a "Right" to conceive as humans? Interesting questions, and I'm looking forward to hearing your insights.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A Cronkite Comment
I wanted to be sure to comment on the passing of Walter Cronkite before it sped too far back in our rearview mirror. A few days ago on NPR, there was a call-in discussion asking questions like, "How important was Cronkite?" and "How much has television news changed since the departure of Cronkite - for the better or worse?" and the discussion got me thinking.
First, the importance of Cronkite. The man's importance - along with Huntley and Brinkley's - simply cannot be overstated. These men who overtook the nation's primary news source in the early sixties set the tone for how television news would be primarily reported for the remainder of the century. Their notion that the news should be reported with dignity, with educated calm, and with the undisputable quotient of Who, When, What, Where, and Why almost guaranteed that their viewers would be well-informed.
I wasn't yet ten year's old when Cronkite signed off for the last time. As a product of my age, I can't claim to have been too much of a news junkie, but I do remember my father grabbing me and sitting me down in front of the floor mounted set, saying: "You may not understand this, but I want you to watch it." And there I sat, watching some mustached man talk about his years as an "anchorman," and signing off with his signature, "And that's the way it is." At the time I didn't really understand the relevance, but in retrospect, I'm very glad that my dad had me watch that.
Cronkite was my parent's primary news guy. After Walter left, my parents shuffled between the three "kids" that took over the networks, Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw. As I got older and began a love affair of my own with news, Brokaw became my guy - even before I started working for NBC - and had my kids been old enough to walk, I would've called them over to the set at the end of Tom's last broadcast.
But I'm getting off track.
What made Cronkite one of the greats? Clearly, his dedication to not only the news, but the 'presentation' of the news made him great. If his dedication to objectivity hadn't been so spectacular, when he did break the rules and personally comment on the apparent stalemate of the Vietnam War, would then-president Johnson have reportedly stated: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."? Cronkite's devotion to what was newsworthy and the process that defined items as such, has become the gold standard of what is actual 'journalism'.
Which leads us to the difference in television news between Cronkite's time and the present day. Certainly, an "Entertainment Factor" has become far too large an element in determining what is newsworthy... but was that inevitable?
The problem - and perhaps in some ways, the benefit - with news today is that there are so many choices. In the heydey of my parent's generation, there were three choices for television news... at the most. Think about that: what if you had three choices to get your television news from? In this day and age, for many of you reading this, the idea seems at the very least, limiting. However, when you have so many television news sources, as well as so many online sources, the quality of the news in many cases clearly declines.
Why?
When competition increases, the means to grabbing attention and ratings becomes more diversified and more extreme. Specialities arise, and objectivity suffers as a result. Yes, there are still objective news sources available, but they are becoming fewer and farther between. Finding a quality news source now depends largely on the viewer. You, as an individual, need to weigh the objectivity of your news, and base your decisions as such on what you want to intake. This is something that a large percentage of Americans are not willing - or are not able, (because of intelligence and/or time constraints, among other reasons) - to do. (When eighteen percent, yes, EIGHTEEN PERCENT, of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth, well...). Additionally, when news becomes so broad and prevalent, how can it not become news itself? Just taking an easy example, remember after the last presidential election, when the GOP was in turmoil, and the question arose: "Who's in charge of the GOP, Michael Steele or Rush Limbaugh?" When news commentators become news items, a line is blurred, and questions arise. Cronkite and his ilk have always downplayed their roles, maintaining that they are only the messengers, and not the subject of the almighty news spotlight.
Perhaps, in the end, that might be Cronkite's greatest legacy: a humility that can serve as a gauge for newsmen in the future. Be less trusting of any journalist who is actively trying to make more of themselves, and not the news they report.
First, the importance of Cronkite. The man's importance - along with Huntley and Brinkley's - simply cannot be overstated. These men who overtook the nation's primary news source in the early sixties set the tone for how television news would be primarily reported for the remainder of the century. Their notion that the news should be reported with dignity, with educated calm, and with the undisputable quotient of Who, When, What, Where, and Why almost guaranteed that their viewers would be well-informed.
I wasn't yet ten year's old when Cronkite signed off for the last time. As a product of my age, I can't claim to have been too much of a news junkie, but I do remember my father grabbing me and sitting me down in front of the floor mounted set, saying: "You may not understand this, but I want you to watch it." And there I sat, watching some mustached man talk about his years as an "anchorman," and signing off with his signature, "And that's the way it is." At the time I didn't really understand the relevance, but in retrospect, I'm very glad that my dad had me watch that.
Cronkite was my parent's primary news guy. After Walter left, my parents shuffled between the three "kids" that took over the networks, Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw. As I got older and began a love affair of my own with news, Brokaw became my guy - even before I started working for NBC - and had my kids been old enough to walk, I would've called them over to the set at the end of Tom's last broadcast.
But I'm getting off track.
What made Cronkite one of the greats? Clearly, his dedication to not only the news, but the 'presentation' of the news made him great. If his dedication to objectivity hadn't been so spectacular, when he did break the rules and personally comment on the apparent stalemate of the Vietnam War, would then-president Johnson have reportedly stated: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."? Cronkite's devotion to what was newsworthy and the process that defined items as such, has become the gold standard of what is actual 'journalism'.
Which leads us to the difference in television news between Cronkite's time and the present day. Certainly, an "Entertainment Factor" has become far too large an element in determining what is newsworthy... but was that inevitable?
The problem - and perhaps in some ways, the benefit - with news today is that there are so many choices. In the heydey of my parent's generation, there were three choices for television news... at the most. Think about that: what if you had three choices to get your television news from? In this day and age, for many of you reading this, the idea seems at the very least, limiting. However, when you have so many television news sources, as well as so many online sources, the quality of the news in many cases clearly declines.
Why?
When competition increases, the means to grabbing attention and ratings becomes more diversified and more extreme. Specialities arise, and objectivity suffers as a result. Yes, there are still objective news sources available, but they are becoming fewer and farther between. Finding a quality news source now depends largely on the viewer. You, as an individual, need to weigh the objectivity of your news, and base your decisions as such on what you want to intake. This is something that a large percentage of Americans are not willing - or are not able, (because of intelligence and/or time constraints, among other reasons) - to do. (When eighteen percent, yes, EIGHTEEN PERCENT, of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth, well...). Additionally, when news becomes so broad and prevalent, how can it not become news itself? Just taking an easy example, remember after the last presidential election, when the GOP was in turmoil, and the question arose: "Who's in charge of the GOP, Michael Steele or Rush Limbaugh?" When news commentators become news items, a line is blurred, and questions arise. Cronkite and his ilk have always downplayed their roles, maintaining that they are only the messengers, and not the subject of the almighty news spotlight.
Perhaps, in the end, that might be Cronkite's greatest legacy: a humility that can serve as a gauge for newsmen in the future. Be less trusting of any journalist who is actively trying to make more of themselves, and not the news they report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
