Author: Danielle Levy

“Peace is not just the absence of conflict,’ said former President Clinton speaking at the American University in Dubai, “it is the presence of opportunity and co-operation and a sense of justice and fairness and movement.” It’s far from a new thought, I remember it from graduate school many years ago. But when someone with the stature Bill Clinton has come to have says it, it ceases to be academic and begins to become real, and in context of his speech, makes the meaning that much more undeniable. “What leads people to suicide bombings?” He asked in the same speech, and then answered his own question. “They believe they have more to gain in the next world than in this one.” He went on to say that he saw this feeling as what he called the major danger in front of Palestinians and Israelis.
Whether Mr. Clinton’s thoughts help solve the Middle East crisis or some other crisis in is probably open to question. What is important is that these thoughts now become part of the diplomatic vocabulary and arsenal.

There’s a new campaign in rural India, “No loo? No, ‘I do’.” Young women and their mothers are insisting that a potential groom have a toilet or there will be no wedding. Getting people to have toilets has been an uphill battle and recent efforts have failed. Now that the campaign has reached the radio as well as TV serials, it is beginning to make an impact. One reason is due to the abortion of female fetuses. Though illegal, girls are seen as a drain since eventually they will need dowries. The result is there is now more male than females and many young women are feeling empowered. Add to that the experience of those women who have access to toilets. They no longer have to get up early to go relieve themselves in open fields, or use public toilets. The in house toilets by being more sanitary also prevents many chronic urinary tract and other infections.
We think of progress as something having large impact, like computers or the automobile. But often progress is in the nitty-gritty of small things which make a large difference, its minutia being all the more inspiring and powerful.

When Google announced their plan to digitize all the books from all the libraries it was—despite few exceptions—hailed as an example of how technology could advance human knowledge. Imagine, many said, all the knowledge in one place. Imagine, searching for something and have the result truly be a thorough search. But then the idea came to the implementation stage and criticism began. Some libraries did not want to participate. Some authors felt they might be cheated. Newspapers and publishing companies began to object and lawsuits were filed.
There seem to be a thread running through the objections, the idea of property, the idea that knowledge, via the book it is part of, belongs to someone, a few, or an entity rather than humanity. Corollary to the idea of property is that of profit, and there’s the rub, no one wants to loose money. Anything published before 1923 poses no problem, it is in the public domain. Anything published since, however, is subject to all sorts of copyrights law which dictate who is legally entitled to the profits. While profits have their uses for without money survival for people or legal entities is not possible, they can also create obstacles. Because libraries have been known to burn or be flooded, and old books can crumble or somehow disappear, digitizing books may acquire a new importance. Which all raises a question, what kind of profits would need to be sacrificed and by whom, in order to ensure the sum of human knowledge is safeguarded?

If I had read that a scientist had been given a grant to study the habitats of mole rats, or their reproductive habits, or their longevity, I would have wondered at the wisdom of such a grant. I would have been very likely to criticize the grant giver for having too a narrow vision or for holding on to a faulty definition of good science or who knows what else. And now I read that the longevity of the mole rat and the fact that unlike other rodents it does not get cancer, could be of use to fighting the disease or better understand health and aging. I have to concede to prejudices I wouldn’t have admitted to. Without the many scientists who studied the habits of mole rats we wouldn’t even be in a position to hope they may teach us something wonderful about cancer.
As I recall there’s an Aesop’s fable about learning from someone smaller than oneself.