In mid-July, the Mallard was fortunate to have breakfast with Thierry Baudet, leader of the Dutch ‘Forum for Democracy’ (FVD) party in the Netherlands. We discussed his views on manufactured consent, immigration, CBDC, and climate change; and his new book ‘The Covid Conspiracy’. Part II can be read here.
TM: Why do you think that your party is allowed to exist?
TB: Well, they are currently trying to pass a law to make it possible to forbid it. The Dutch Secret Service published a report about undermining of public faith in established institutions. They call it ‘anti-institutional extremism’. They claim that it occurs when a narrative is created which undermines public trust in institutions. They claim that it is dangerous for democracy. They then claim that that means it should be able to ban any political party which might so undermine trust.
TM: And that just happens to be you?
TB: Yes, parties that disagree with the Covid narrative, parties which might have sympathy for Russia, parties who do not agree with mass immigration. It shows that we are slouching towards totalitarianism. There is one single allowed approach to all issues and there is no room for difference of opinion.
TM: Do you think a party like yours might spring up in the UK?
TB: I don’t know. Your political system is extremely difficult to penetrate for small or fringe parties. It is a general trend in Europe, and probably also in the US, that you are not allowed to doubt the underlying assumptions anymore. Go back to the 1960s and the Vietnam war: then, there were people arguing in America about fighting communism abroad. Nowadays, every politician just agrees that ‘something must be done’ about Russia/climate Change/refugees etc. There is no public discussion allowed. They want militant democracies.
TM: What do you feel are the other differences between FVD and other European right-wing parties?
TB: First, we are much more radical. The AfD, for instance, does not want to leave the EU.
Second, we are the only group to create a social and economic framework for our members. This is not something that we have seen with other movements in Europe, we are the most progressive from that point of view.
Third, we embrace aesthetics and culture. We think that what we offer instead of the other parties is the Western tradition. We talk a lot about beauty, music and traditional architecture. I do not see the others talking about that but it is absolutely crucial to the conservative message. We have aesthetics on our side. We have love on our side. We love the things that have been created for us and the tradition that we have inherited. We are not just liberals; we actually have a vision for a completely different way of living. This has not been crystalised yet but a lot of our members are actively searching a means to be religious again. A means to experience the transcendental dimension in life. You cannot go without those things, it is every aspect of your life which is not just the political.
TM: It seems to me that a lot of people do not care about those transcendental dimensions anymore. Do you think that’s true? If so, why?
TB: Yes, a lot of people don’t care about it. But I also think that there is an ideology behind ugliness. I believe it is linked to the teachings of the Frankfurt school. They believe that beauty, the family, national identity, etc were all elements of fascism. These thinkers have decided that they should target the beautiful. It is why the left wing reveres ugliness. They like the idea of harmony being disturbed, they have been taught that harmony is associated with fascism, and it is their job to destroy it. They are told that if they build things in a beautiful way, it is kitsch. They want ‘happy chaos’ – but that doesn’t exist. We are transitioning to a new era with no focal point, no traditional family. A world where everything is fluid and deconstruct-able. This is very much the dominant philosophy, and it is of course in the interest of large corporations because it turns people into consumers.
TM: Quite a bleak view, Thierry. Do you have any hope? Do you think it will change?
TB: I think that the human will for liberty is stronger but that this malaise may last for decades. I think it might become a lot worse before it gets better.
The only thing that I think I can do is continue fighting. I’m not going to go down with this, and become bitter… I will try as hard as possible to live a good life. Secondly, I think that we can connect with each other and help each other have a nice life. There is a lot that we can do if we are inventive and remain loyal to one another. It is very difficult for any state to control everybody.
We can’t foresee the future in every detail, but I meet a lot of fantastic people speaking out. There is a real will and energy among people to regroup and form alliances and set up platforms.
TM: So, it’s not over?
TB: It’s not over.
-
Private property and the environment: competing or reconcilable objectives?
When it comes to the question of the environment and what to do about it, there are a number of assumptions—the outcome of which does, for the most part, map nicely—with respect to who will be saying what about it. For example, that a Leftist is more inclined to refer to themselves as an ‘environmentalist’, coupling their ideological convictions of social progressivism with concern for ecological damage, is, for the most part, true. Equally, that a right-winger is less likely to refer to themselves as an ‘environmentalist’, is also, for the most part, true. I suspect that the inclination of the latter is more out of reaction to the prevailing Leftist narratives around environmental protection, rather than a genuine indifference or lack of concern around the matter considered in itself. Certainly, with respect to myself, as I refer to myself as both a Right-libertarian (of the more ‘reactionary’, as it’s often called, conservative inclination) and an ‘environmentalist’, I seek to present the case in favour of private property and environmental protection as being reconcilable, not hostile or competing, objectives. This I aim to do without too much of a foray into the dense political-philosophical and economic-statistical thicket, where one can get lost rather easily and squarely miss the point.
As a matter of first principles, it almost goes without saying that the Right-libertarian stance is one which emphasises the importance of private property, and therefore of property rights by default, in all human affairs. It is a case of ontological significance for the human being to be able to determine the boundaries and limits, the inclusion and the exclusion, the ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ before one is able to situate themselves appropriately in dealing with the community. In other words, a distinction between what is private, and therefore one’s own, and what is not, is antecedent to one’s proper place in wider society. This is not simply a matter of distinguishing between ‘personal’ and ‘private’ either—a case of semantic hairsplitting if ever there was one—but is a statement of profound significance. That which is privately owned implies not only the antecedent distinction foregoing one’s entry into the community, but further implies the differential of being able to realise gain from peaceful, contractual exchange of one’s goods based upon a value matrix of temporal, or time-based, considerations. It asks: will you defer gratification now for a higher reward at some future date? Some prefer immediate consumption, others delayed gratification; it is the latter case which tends towards a realisation of gain, as foregoing consumption now can provide higher gains, or profit, in the future. Whereas in the case of the former, one values immediate consumption more highly, and therefore does not delay gratification appropriately enough to contribute the necessary goods or assets towards more time-consuming, labour-intensive, and developmental pursuits which tend to appreciate in value. This important factor of time-consideration (referred to in Austrian economic theory as ‘time preference’) is a universal a priori such that it will play a role in any given economic situation. The socialist collective will still include those who prefer to delay gratification and co-ordinate for future returns, and it will most likely be those who form the body of bureaucrats which oversee, and yet do not have a proper investment in (qua non-owners), the administration of things.
From here, the question becomes: who is the right person to which the task may be deferred? There is a lengthy index of things which most of us are happy to defer as a responsibility of someone else. For example, while I could butcher a chicken if required, I would rather not, and am happy to defer that responsibility to another who is paid to do so, providing me with what I need to make dinner. Likewise, I will, in my paid work, take on responsibilities over people and things which others do not wish to do, and are happy to leave to me. Our products or services may be exchanged peacefully through the medium of money (even if, as it currently stands, the money used is horrendously unstable, inflated, untied to anything with a real asset value, etc—fiat currency) and there is no further cause for concern. Similarly, both of us will make our own time-based valuations of goods and capital. Both of us will have to consume immediately at least every day to stay alive and gain some enjoyment of idle time, but one or the other of us may display a greater preference for delaying more capital, in the form of savings and investments.
Carrying this same question over to the issue of the environment, when it comes to making firm judgements with suitable incentive structures, who is the right person to whom the task may be deferred? If the stewardship of the environment is between government agencies and private property owners, then in both cases the task has been deferred to someone else. But who is the better, and why? The Right-libertarian, and therefore my own, case is that environmental concerns are better, as a mutual factor of justice and probability (qualification and quantification), left in the hands of private owners. Those who are more stringently tied to ownership titles are, by default, more inclined to sustain a profound concern over the capital values of assets held.
This principle is equally as applicable to land and what’s on it as it is to anything else in a private economy. At its most basic level, one wishes to realise a greater return on future goods when consumption of them in the present is delayed—why are factors such as land, and how it’s employed, be any different? In the case of government ‘owners’ (nonowners, or ‘caretakers’), there is no stringent incentive structure, and therefore no same level of concern for anything except that which may be looted in a shorter term when held relative to the long-term returns desired by the private owner. These government nonowners may have a concern by way of public law—perhaps some vague notion of ‘value for taxpayer money’ or something to that effect—but this concern alone is not enough, particularly because they do not bear the full cost of waste, inefficiency, destruction, and so on. For example: if 100 people utilise a piece of land and even ten of them trash it, who will foot the bill? Although the clean-up operations will, as things currently are and all else equal, be organised by a local council, there is no proper structure in place to deter or disincentivise such trashing from even occurring. The council clean-up team, and the administrator-bureaucrats who sent them, do not personally front the cost of such measures, and instead rely on a predetermined budget. This means that there is nobody who is personally affected or put out by the presence of trashers. However, were the land privately owned, there is a personal tie (the owner’s) to the asset value of the land, and therefore destructive trashing behaviour will be thoroughly accorded with the appropriate measures, such as compensation, restitution, or expulsion. Equally, the owner being subject to the full-cost principle, will have an interest in keeping down insurance premiums and clean-up costs, and will therefore put in place stringent conditions, e.g. payment-for-entry, as well as security teams charged with monitoring the use of the land by the consumers on it at a given time. A very simple yet very effective yardstick to measure the validity of my claims here—and one which would be satisfactory for those empirically inclined—would be to watch and average the behaviour of consumers when occupying ‘public’ property against utilising space which they have paid to enter and is administered properly, such as private gardens or grounds.
Conditions in place, where does environmentalism factor in? Care for and stewardship of the land imply moral/ethical qualia, and therefore a wholly subjective assessment, of what it means to engage with the natural world, itself a changing and at times dubious human construct. In the economic assessment alone, as outlined (albeit briefly) above, there is little intrinsic merit in saying that any one given moral judgement should be imported into the calculations of profit and cost, capital value and loss, asset utilisation and non-utilisation, etc. For example, one private owner of land may realise greater returns on selling up huge swathes of land for environmentally destructive purposes, such as factory- or house-building. (To be sure, these uses are required and, in the instability of the globalised-state economy, probably desirable to some extent.) Yet in this case, what’s to stop him? It is a matter of two further economic injunctions (before we move onto the place of appropriate moral judgement): opportunity cost and insurance premiums. In brief, land is usually a sought-after investment as a way to stabilise one’s portfolio due to its nature of slow-but-sure growth potential; therefore, if one is set to realise greater returns, and a greater opportunity thereof, for maintaining and even increasing the value of the land in the direction of soil quality for agriculture, forestry for timber, pasture land for animals, and so forth, then the sacrifice made in selling up for more environmentally-destructive measures will not seem worthwhile. In a climate where all roads are leaning former—high soil quality for domestic agriculture and high quality timber are increasingly sought after goods, for example—it is only a matter of time before the former outweighs the latter, the opportunity costs favour the preservation, rather than tarmacking of, land. Likewise, one’s insurance premiums are likely to skyrocket if the behaviour and activity conducted on one’s land threaten pollution, despoliation, or threat to quality of life or even, in extreme cases, to life itself. If everything around the piece of land in this imagined scenario is privately owned—including waterways, hedgerows, and so forth—then the constant threat of legal action, coupled with hiking insurance premiums, altogether disincentivise such behaviour. Externalities are more difficult to slip under the proverbial rug if one is surrounded by other owners, with an interest in appreciating returns (all else equal), who are capable of and empowered to take action and injunctions against undesirable behaviours.
Objective considerations aside, what about the moral/ethical injunctions? Admittedly, these being more subjective, it is usually left to a matter of aesthetic taste and criteria for such moral judgements to hold ground. This is much more suited therefore to the realm of opinion, further away from the domain of tangible economic fact. However, it is worth pointing out that many do, annually, seek retreats (either long, short, or permanent), relief, and respite in the aesthetic beauty of the countryside. Lucrative property portfolios, parks, gardens, walkways, vineyards, orchards, woodlands, campsites, activity centres, trusts, etc spring up, suggesting that there are many who are keen to escape the noise, pollution, smog, dust, and psychologically-overbearing atmosphere of the big cities, and instead find some solace amongst birdsong and woodland.
Likewise, there are increasing reports detailing the way in which certain practices are negatively harming the human population, such as bio-chemical engineering, microplastics, and pollution, to borrow a couple of examples. (To refer briefly to an economic consideration: should these reports prove correct, as I suspect they will, then one’s own insurance premiums for engaging in this sort of consumption will go up, and therefore have an average impact of disincentivising the consumption of goods which are, by all accounts, harmful to both oneself, others, and the environment.) I, as a rural dweller myself, am entirely sympathetic to this need, understanding the desire to maintain the balanced, steadier, quieter pace of rural life itself. It is one of those situations more dialectical insofar as if we didn’t have it, and therefore didn’t know any better, then fine—but we do have it, do know better, and therefore should, in my estimation at least, have some concern for its preservation and well-being.
In the absence of any clear governmental responsibility or concern, and in the absence of any trustworthiness for government programmes (and, I argue, rightly so), the purpose of this piece has been to demonstrate that one can indeed hold tight to two convictions which are not mutually exclusive. The first is the conviction that private property rights are essential to human civilisation and peaceful relations, and the second is the conviction that there are reasons, both objective and subjective, for being concerned about the state of the environment. Human stewardship and responsible management have been practised for centuries, and it is worth resurrecting these practices, both economically and morally, before it is too late, without leaning too heavily on tax-funded, unpredictable bureaucrats to do the job.
The latter situation is akin to asking a bank robber to ensure that ten percent of his loot is donated to a charitable cause, and on this condition he will be let off the hook. It is time to reassess the role of private property rights in this equation, without dipping too heavily into the hysteria around total alarmism—although I appreciate that in the span of this article I have only been able to do so cursorily, and therefore have not given a total treatment of the matter.
-
The Surrogacy Question
Are we owed a child? Is it a human right to be able to have one?
In a recent Instagram piece, Olympic diver Tom Daley posted a picture of himself, his husband Dustin and their toddler son with baby Phoenix Rose, the new addition to their family. It’s a variation of the same family picture we’ve seen thousands of times. The comments were full of excited congratulations from friends and fans alike. Again, something we’ve seen thousands of times.
What some pointed out however, was the lack of the person who had given birth to the little one: the surrogate.
Such images are common online. New parents show off their new child, but they do not show the surrogate. Some may mention her, but she is now shown. In a move that irks many, the parent or parents may sit in the hospital bed, holding the baby as though they have given birth to it.
It begs the question: is surrogacy acceptable?
What is surrogacy?
Surrogacy is the act of a woman carrying and birthing a child for another person or couple. There are two types of surrogacy:
Gestational Surrogacy: the surrogate is biologically unrelated to the baby. The eggs come from the intended adopted mother or a donor.
Traditional Surrogacy: the surrogate’s eggs are used. She is biologically related to the baby.
There are two types of surrogate services. One is altruistic, in which the surrogate is doing this as a favour and without payment. Commercial surrogacy allows payment and it can include medical fees or even more than that.
Who uses it?
Surrogacy can be used by heterosexual couples, same-sex couples and single people. Those who use surrogacy may do it for a variety of reasons. Reasons include:
● Unable to carry a child
● Single person
● Same-sex couple
● Unable to adopt
● Older person
● Does not want to be pregnant
● Worry about pregnancy
● Medically required
Celebrities that have used surrogates:
Heterosexual Couples:
● Grey’s Anatomy star Ellen Pompeo and husband Chris Ivery
● Jonas Brothers member Nick Jonas and actress Priyanka Chopra
● Rapper Kanye West and reality star Kim Kardashian
● Actor Matthew Broderick and actress Sarah Jessica Parker
● Fast and Furious star Jordana Brewster and producer Andrew Form
● Frasier star Kelsey Grammer and reality star Camille
● Actor Courtney B. Vance and actress Angela Bassett
● Star Wars creator George Lucas and wife Mellody Hobson
● Actress Nicole Kidman and singer Keith Urban
● Actor Robert DeNiro and model Toukie Smith
● Model Tyra Banks and photographer Erik Asla
● Twitter owner Elon Musk and singer Grimes
● Actor Alec Baldwin and yoga instructor Hilaria Baldwin
● Actress Cameron Diaz and singer Benji Madden
LGBT Couples:
● Modern Family star Jesse Tyler Ferguson and husband Justin Mikita
● Actors Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka
● Singer Elton John and filmmaker David Furnish
● Singer Ricky Martin and artist Jwan Yosef
● Glee creator Ryan Murphy and husband David Miller
● NSYNC singer Lance Bass and husband Michael Turchin
Single Parents:
● Pitch Perfect star Rebel Wilson
● Talk show host Andy Cohen
● Journalist Anderson Cooper
● Actress Lucy Liu
● Blogger Perez Hilton
● Footballer Cristiano Ronaldo
● Singer Michael Jackson
● Actress Amber Heard
What’s the Law?
Laws vary country to country. Altruistic surrogacy is more likely to be legal than paid surrogacy as it’s believed there is less exploitation. Laws may restrict access to non-nationals or non-married straight couples.
UK: Surrogacy is legal in the U.K., but a surrogate is not allowed to be paid beyond reasonable expenses. Contracts are not legally binding. Surrogates are automatically regarded as the legal parent, whether or not she is biologically related to the baby. It is a criminal offence to advertise your search for a surrogate, advertise that you wish to be one, for a third party to receive payment, and to broker a surrogacy agreement. This means commercial surrogacy is banned.
USA: Surrogacy laws vary from state to state. Surrogacy is totally banned in Michigan. Only straight married couples using their own eggs can use surrogacy in Louisiana, but commercial surrogacy is banned. California allows both altruistic and commercial surrogacy to all and allows pre-birth orders to establish legal paternity.
Australia: Altruistic surrogacy is legal across all states and territories.
Canada: Altruistic surrogacy with reasonably paid expenses is allowed everywhere except Quebec, where all surrogacy is banned.
France: Surrogacy is illegal.
India: Surrogacy is legal for married heterosexual Indian couples who meet certain criteria such as age and length of marriage. Certain single women are also permitted to use surrogacy. India previously allowed foreigners to use surrogates. This was limited to straight couples in 2013 before it was banned for all foreigners in 2015. Prior to 2015, India was a hugely popular destination for fertility tourism due to easiness and relative cheapness.
Iran: Surrogacy is totally legal and is a popular destination in the Middle East for heterosexual couples.
Russia: Surrogacy is legal for Russian couples. The lower house of government has passed a bill banning foreign parents from using surrogacy.
Ukraine: Surrogacy is legal for heterosexual married couples. As it’s easy to get and often relatively cheap, Ukraine is a very popular destination for fertility tourism.
Popular destinations for surrogacy include the United States, Ukraine, Colombia, Georgia and Mexico.
Religious Perspectives
Religious views on surrogacy vary even within the same faith. Different denominations have different views on the accessibility of surrogacy and the conditions that merit it.
Catholicism opposes surrogacy and all other types of reproductive assistance. One paragraph of the Catechism of 1992 states: ‘Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral.’ The Church believes that conception cannot and should not be separated from the sexual intercourse between a married, heterosexual couple. As surrogacy uses an outside source, it is deemed immoral by the Catholic Church.
The Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) still disapprove of surrogacy and strongly discourage it, but believes it is down to the individual married couple. One of Mitt Romney’s sons has used surrogacy and three have used IVF, both of which the church disagrees with.
The Russian Orthodox Church strongly opposes surrogacy. They will not baptise children born of surrogacy unless the biological parents repent.
Judaism has not got a clear line on surrogacy. The worry is the child would belong to the surrogate mother and as Judaism tends to be matrilineal, it’s an issue if the surrogate is not Jewish. Couples are usually urged to seek the help of their rabbi. Some rabbis and scholars believe it is exploitative. It’s recommended that there’s a list of Jewish surrogates to ensure there are no accidental sibling marriages. Some authorities prefer that the surrogate is not a blood relation of the father and that she is not married.
The views between the two main sects of Islam, Sunni and Shia, vary. Sunni Islam explicitly prohibits surrogacy as it is introducing the sperm of a man who is not married to the surrogate. Islam has very strict views on lineage and blood, hence why adoption in the Western sense is not permitted. Shia Islam generally permits surrogacy, and the Shia nation of Iran is actually one of the leading pioneers in fertility treatment.
Hinduism has not got a particular stance on surrogacy. Whilst there is no prohibition, the use of surrogacy by Hindus is generally quite rare. India was a popular destination for surrogacy for many years before the ban on commercial surrogacy came in, so many surrogate mothers are members of the Hindu faith.
Buddhism has not spoken out about surrogacy, but it’s generally approved of. It can be seen as an act of charity and kindness that gives one good karma.
What is right?
Few issues unite left-leaning feminists and the religious right like surrogacy does. They are united in their condemnation of the practice that they say exploits women, children and the poor. Their reasons may be different but they ultimately join together. To them, and perhaps those who don’t even subscribe to either ideology, surrogacy is wrong.
Surrogacy seems to be everywhere. As stated above, many celebrities seem to be using surrogacy in order to start their own families. The language used when reporting it does nothing to bring attention or praise to the surrogate. One article reported that Paris Hilton ‘gave birth with the help of a surrogate.’ No, Ms. Hilton did not give birth. The surrogate did. Instantly, the non-surrogates are proclaimed to be the parent. Legally that is not always true. Ethically? It’s a bit murky.
The immediate concern is for the surrogates themselves. Long have women wished to be parted from the notion that they are a walking womb, yet the role of surrogate seems to push them into that box. She may be given money and expenses and lavish items, but they are not for her, but for what she can do. The care is ultimately for the baby or babies she is carrying. Her value is what is in her womb.
Surrogacy is not without risks. Pregnancy in itself can be a danger. Pregnancy and childbirth are two very taxing, tiring things that can do a number on one’s mind and body. That is not to say that the end result is not one of joy, but it is not an easy thing to enter into. The surrogate is giving birth to a child that she is biologically attached to but will be given away almost as soon as possible.
There’s also somewhat of an obsession with perfection within surrogacy. Parents want the perfect baby. They’ll refuse a child seen as ‘defective.’ Plans are made so that the baby will look a certain way. Paris Hilton even edited her baby’s fingernails on Instagram. That is not true of all surrogate parents, but your child should not have to be perfect.
She is also bound by agreements. Whilst they are not legally binding in some places, the contracts can reward the prospective parent a lot of power over the woman’s body. It is possible for them to even control any medicine that she needs. In one episode of Chicago Med, a young surrogate comes in and ends up needing to deliver early. She refuses, as the parents won’t accept the baby or pay if she delivers before forty weeks. If the baby is disabled or the wrong gender, then they may even ask for an abortion. The woman is poor and desperate and has agreed to these terms.
This is what it all circles back to: exploitation.
India banned all foreign couples from using surrogacy in the country over concerns about the treatment of surrogates. The Indian surrogates were generally poor women who were desperate to make money for their families. These women, often uneducated and living hand-to-mouth, are giving up so much. Despite getting paid, the expenses often aren’t enough. Most of the money paid by parents goes to agencies, not the surrogate. They are often shafted. They are no given what they are due for the service they are providing. India is known for having crushing poverty so it’s no wonder these women offer themselves.
Surrogacy is not cheap. In the USA, it can cost between $100-200K. That’s not pocket money. That is money that very few people can easily spend. The costs are so astronomical which is why so many go abroad. Some even turn to loans. This means those who pursue surrogacy have means. Contrast this with the surrogate. Surrogates are more often than not much less wealthy than the parents. This creates a case of wealth buying a baby.
Once the pregnancy is done and a baby is born, the woman is disposable. The baby will be given to their new parents immediately and separated from the woman who gave birth to them. That’s hard for a woman who has just given birth- it’s a haze of hormones and feelings. Is there aftercare?
Surrogacy has not been without its scandals and controversies. One popular fertility clinic in Ukraine saw its owner and its head physician locked up for human trafficking. In places where surrogacy is less regulated, there can be cases of abuse that fly freely. It’s not an uncommon connection. Human trafficking is something that horrified any good person. Whilst even critics of surrogacy may not go as far as to compare it to human trafficking, the potential for the two to be linked is great.
Unrestrictive policies allow abuses to happen. One Japanese man gained thirteen children through surrogacy and was given custody of them by courts. The children had been found in Bangkok, attended to by nannies. Commercial surrogacy in Thailand is banned, yet this was allowed to happen.
Thailand was in the spotlight in 2014 regarding a very contentious surrogacy. An Australian man named David Farnell and his wife Wendy went to Thailand and got a gestational surrogate. When it turned out that one of the twins their surrogate Pattaramon Janbua was carrying had Down’s Syndrome, the Farnells told her to abort him. Pattaramon did not wish to and gave birth to both children. The other twin was born healthy and was given to the Farnells. Miscommunication meant that the Farnells went back to Australia with their baby daughter Pipah, whilst Pattarmon kept baby Gammy.
Controversy further arose when it was discovered that Farnell had been convicted for child sexual offences. In the 1990s, Farnell had been jailed for molesting two girls under ten and had further assaulted three women. Thai law said that the birth mother of a child was the mother, yet little Pipah was allowed to go home with this man. The courts eventually ruled that Farnell was not allowed to be alone with Pipah. He would eventually die in 2020.
That is not to say that every parent who has children the traditional way or adopts is perfect. The adoption process has seen its fair share of issues. That being said, adoption does have more restrictions. Adoption can be so strict and time consuming in the US that many go abroad to adopt in places like China.
I cannot begrudge a person or persons for wanting children. It has been the natural order of things since time immemorial. Infertility is a desperately sad thing for those who want to have a family. It circles back to the question of whether a baby is a right or a privilege. Not everyone who uses a surrogate is infertile either. It can come down to simply not wanting to be pregnant.
At the end of the day, somebody has to be pregnant in order to have a child. The question is: who should it be?
-
Why Insects on an Island cannot Fly
When British biologist Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) researched the birds and insects living on tropical islands in the 19th century, he observed that many species had gradually abandoned their wings. Insects were equipped with small legs and feet, but no flying apparatus.
The reason they were without wings was because their innate survival instinct would kill them. If the tiny, feather-light insect were to take off and – through a tandem of ocean winds and its curiosity – land on the sea, in all probability it was never to return home again. Nature has preserved these bugs from the dangers of this instinctive trait, of their deceptive curiosity. She has deprived these little critters of the weapons to accidentally, and in all their enthusiasm, kill themselves. But why didn’t nature do the same to us? Why did we get wings, with all the resulting consequences? More than a comparison, this is a metaphor. A metaphor that bespeaks the hubris and curiosity of human beings. It is also a metaphor about censorship and ill-considered decisions, but we’ll come to that at the end. Luckily this analogy simultaneously offers an antidote. An antidote that comes in the shape of conservatism, and some apolitical common sense.
Curiosity
Anyone who studies human behavior and its history notices that people have a fundamental fear of standing still, both physically, culturally and intellectually. As humans we – ab initio – have a reflex to think linearly, in past, present and future. This typical forward-thinking stems from the fundamental curiosity that characterises human beings. With necessity and inevitability, we search for a human nature and the principles that can construct our being. We do not only ask questions, but we also live the questions – after the spirit of Rilke. There is a constant desire to seek them out, study them, weigh them and above all conclude them. We have been doing this since the Homo sapiens developed self-awareness – years and years ago. This curiosity makes it difficult and almost unnatural for man to resign himself to his position, stand still and appreciate what he already holds.
From this curiosity, then, stems the illusion that as we progress more and more, we will eventually be able to grasp something better. Or in other words, we fly off to the perfect island where everything will be better than on the dreary island we were born on. An island-insect, if endowed with thoughts and desires similar to ours, would want to fly to another island, and might even try to do so instinctively even without these thoughts and desires. We, unlike these insects, are not held back by any natural limitations. We have managed through reason, tools and technology to make our way to any other island on the globe. This curiosity and ingenuity, however, holds significant challenges and perils for a society. The few people who seem to notice these risks are the conservatives, and they are the only ones who – often at the expense of their own image – can offer some counterweight to these innate sentiments.
Conservation
Conservatism is – as the late Sir Roger Scruton (1944 – 2020) so beautifully observed – the philosophy of conservation. It is the philosophy of preservation, to protect what is good, to be grateful for what we have and to be critical of the delusion of the day. In other words, it is a philosophy born of love and appreciation. Love for a shared culture, land, language and country and appreciation for the work and sacrifices of the people who created such a place. Perhaps Austro-Bohemian composer Gustav Mahler’s comment encapsulates this very idea most succinctly, and deserves its mention: “Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.”
As a philosophy she seems – prima facie – rather stately and dusty, but not particularly bellicose or harmful. Yet today the majority of the so-called intellectuals seem to think of conservatism as some dubious ideology, something for old white men or a thing from a different time.
I stop writing for a moment, sip at my coffee and and wipe the ashes off my trousers. I think to myself: is this really what being conservative means? I am 24, well of this age, and do not – yet – feel like an “old white man”, however that should feel. But why do the people around me, my friends, fellow students, politicians, journalists, teachers, writers and philosophers seem so numb to these sentiments? Why the bad connotation of conserving something that is good?
After all, we conserve all sorts of things. In museums and archives, experts work every day to preserve ancient artifacts, statues, rugs, coins, drawings or paintings, to prevent them from being lost or broken, from being consumed by microscopic bugs, moisture or adverse temperatures. We value these objects. They are worth our resources, time and energy and deserve to be passed on to the next generation who will – hopefully – develop the same love for them. Conservatives who delicately, scrupulously and meticulously handle the fragile ideals on which our culture was built, are somewhat comparable to them.
However, what can be argued is that this is a skewed comparison because the conserved object is fundamentally distinct in both situations. Many people would argue that, unlike museum objects, the conservative is not trying to protect something that is worth protecting. Indeed, the opposite is often claimed, the conservative wants to conserve something that is inherently bad. Conservatism wants to perpetuate old patterns of power, inequality, hatred and oppression, preserving something that should have been destroyed and forgotten long ago. Let us not fall into this trap and assume that there are – still – a plethora of things worth preserving and cherishing.
The Open Sea
To ‘island-insects’, flying was a useful – and presumably quite ‘fun’ – quality that was being eliminated to ensure their survival. Thus, the creatures also parted with certain opportunities that existence offered them. They no longer enjoyed the freedom enjoyed by their ancestors, with the wind in their tails and their heads in the clouds, but it made something else possible, namely their survival.
The survival of a culture is less visible than the survival of an individual, a football coach in difficult waters or an Iberian bull-fighting for its life in a Madrid arena. It does not always perish in revolutions or iconoclasts, but in a quietly growing disinclination to conservation and stagnation. One only has to look at publishing house Puffin – censoring dozens of words in Roald Dahl stories last year – to see the pitfalls of such beliefs. Collectively we say: let’s make tabula rasa and finally move forward as a society”. In that same capacity however, we might leave behind something that may be more fragile and valuable than we hold it to be.
An old Russian adage can probably convey my message more adequately than my own pen can: you are born where you are needed, and that is on your own island. Let us not get lost in the endless opportunities that existence offers us, but celebrate its inherent beauty. Let us not fly too close to the sun or too far from our island, but take care of what we have been given, lest evolution eventually take away our wings too. For if we rush out to sea, we may realise that this island was not so bad after all, and will come to the painful conclusion that, so deep in the open ocean, this place may lie forever behind us.
