Having a hard time with the Bioethics podcast

The center for bio-ethics and human dignity claims to be "Exploring the nexus of biomedicine, biotechnology, and our common humanity." It begins to state as its purpose to "equip thought leaders to engage the issues of bioethics using the tools of rigorous research, conceptual analysis, charitable critique, leading-edge publication, and effective teaching." As someone who has a concern about the ethical and social implications of the ever advancing bio-technology, I was happy to find this organization and begin to listen to their podcast.

Many of the other educational podcasts I know that address issues of bio-technology, tend to be rather technical and research oriented in their approach and mostly address the methods and techniques of technology and scientific research The ethical concerns are much more side-lined. As a consequence I very much wanted to find a podcast that approached the subject from the ethical side. The Bioethics podcast, is such a podcast.


Sofar, however, I severely put off by what podcasts I have heard in the way they stress their Christian nature. The concerns in bioethics are presented in the light of a belief in God and Christian principles. As someone who is secular and for many practical purposes, if not Jewish, certainly no Christian, I feel shut off from the subject. I am going to persist and check the content that is delivered by the CBHD. I do want to find out more about the ethical issues with advancing bio-technology and healthy reserves in the name of human dignity are necessary to keep in mind while advancing. I take those principles to be universal and would expect from the CBHD to assume the same. Even if the organization and its members find their origin and inspiration in Christianity, the universality of their enterprise should beg them to restrain to link their findings exclusively to faith in Christianity. They do not seem to actually believe for being a true ethic one needs to be Christian, but it would suit them not to create an atmosphere where that is the practical consequence of their rhetoric.

Marathon interview met Lea Dasberg

Er is een boek van Lea Dasberg, dat ik niet gelezen heb, maar dat me aanspreekt alleen al om de titel: Grootbrengen door kleinhouden. Daar wordt het Nederlands maternalisme zo goed gevangen dat ik me door haar meteen begrepen voel. En dan hebben we ook nog iets gemeen: Nederland achter ons gelaten hebben en onze eindbestemming in Israel gevonden. Genoeg om op voorhand al te genieten van het marathoninterview uit 1989.

Interviewster Harmke Pijpers laat Dasberg lang vertellen over haar kindertijd. Daarna, langs een heel natuurlijke overgang komt ze te spreken over haar pedagogische principes. Daar zitten prachtige gedachtengangen tussen. Zoals bijvoorbeeld: het is te riskant om een toekomst te bouwen op de zelfontplooing. In haar optiek moeten kinderen gestimuleerd worden. Desnoods ook moeten ze hard aangepakt worden - Dasberg gelooft niet in zielig doen. Mensen moeten maar leren dat sommige tegenslagen er in het leven bijhoren. Pech hoeft niet weg, voor haar. Geen recht op een pechvrij bestaan.

Dat had ze zelf ook niet. En zo legt ze zich neer bij de afstand die haar invaliditeit noodzakelijkerwijs tot mannen schept. Maar ze geeft ook aan geboft te hebben, met datgene wat elk kind nodig heeft, maar niet altijd krijgt: ouders die je lief vinden. Die je mooi vinden en die hun verwachtingen en hoop over je koesteren. De mens moet met het basisgevoel opgroeien dat het kostbaar is. Waarna het ook nog over Israel gaat. Voor mij is dat niet minder fascinerend, maar ik kan me voorstellen dat dat gedeelte, juist doordat het zo gedateerd is, de gemiddelde luisteraar wat minder raakt. Het Israel van 1989 is niet meer het Israel van 2007, al kan je versteld staan over hoeveel er nog wel hetzelfde gebleven is.

UC podcast: Multiculturalism in the Netherlands

When I left the Netherlands in 1998, I knew its multiculturalism was no idyllic sharing of one country for all of its inhabitants, but for the majority it was nevertheless a pretty sturdy ideology. One can certainly say that since the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the Netherlands society has lost whatever naiveté it had and in the process much of its faith in multiculturalism. The question is, whether multiculturalism as such has gone lost for the Netherlands.

The University Channel podcast invited researcher Paul Sniderman to talk about the book he wrote with Louk Hagendoorn: When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and Its Discontents in the Netherlands. Much of his speech is spent on explanations and justifications for the quantifiable research, but sooner rather than later exactly this question is addressed. It so turns out, that what happened to the Netherlands, can be seen as the result of the somewhat naive stand in multiculturalism. Sniderman doesn't think however the multiculturalism is wrong, it is rather sensitive and vulnerable, but essential to liberal democracy.

He also doesn't think multiculturalism is lost on the Netherlands or on the Dutch. He shows the complexity of having colliding cultures living together. But he also shows the Dutch largely stick to their tolerance with other cultures, albeit with altered emphasis. Emphasis that shifted from the differences in culture, to the integration of different cultures into one society.