Saturday, March 1, 2014
Utilitarisme
Abort og paradokset om menneskeverd
Under gårsdagens bloggpost om foster-dukken endte kommentarfeltet i stor grad opp i en debatt for eller mot abort. Det var vel som forventet, og det er en debatt vi aldri kan, eller bør, bli ferdig med.
Hovedargumentet til de som er motstandere av abort er at livet starter i det egget befruktes. Fra det øyeblikk er det et fullverdig menneskeliv. Det har potensialet til å bli et fullvoksent menneske gitt nok tid, ergo kan man ikke definere noen periode etter befruktningen hvor man kategorisk kan si at dette ennå ikke er et menneske. Utviklingen fra befruktet egg til en 80 år gammel mann er gradvis og flytende, og det finnes ikke noe punkt på denne utviklingen hvor egenskapen «menneske» plutselig dukker opp – annet enn ved selve befruktningen.
Utilitarisme
Det er etter mitt syn en rimelig slutning å dra, og derfor finnes det ikke noe absolutt korrekt tidsgrense for når vi kan tillate abort. Man må innta et utilitaristisk perspektiv og tenke at konsekvensene av en handling skal være et gode for flest mulig mennesker. Sett i dette praktiske lys støtter jeg retten til selvbestemt abort til og med 12. svangerskapsuke. Alternativet er en grov undertrykking av kvinners rett til å bestemme over egen kropp, fryktelig stor helserisiko ved illegale aborter, og neppe noen reduksjon i antall aborter uansett. Et abortforbud vil altså totalt sett føre til mer lidelse for flere mennesker enn hva lov om selvbestemt abort gjør.
Abortmotstandere kjøper ikke den. De mener at man ikke kan innta et rent pragmatisk eller utilitaristisk syn på abort. På samme måte som vi ikke kan si at det i blant er greit å drepe et voksent menneske, eller en baby for den saks skyld, kan vi ikke drepe embryoer og fostre. Uansett når man tar livet av noen, fire uker, fire måneder eller fire år etter eggets befruktning, avslutter man et menneskeliv. Det er etisk sett fullstendig galt, i følge mange abortmotstandere. De likestiller abort med drap.
Det er lett å være enig. Det er som nevnt umulig å sette noe absolutt punkt på utviklingslinjen til et menneske hvor man kan hevde at det ikke ennå er et menneske. Man kan forsøke, men svaret vil alltid avhenge av hvordan man definerer et menneske, og det vil være umulig å komme frem til en generell enighet om dette. Men om man velger å se bort fra det utilitaristiske perspektiv og inntar en holdning hvor selv et embryo fortjener samme respekt og beskyttelse som et voksent menneske, så støter man på noen problemer. Man kan nemlig ikke bare se én side av saken, og her bommer abortmotstanderne grovt, etter mitt syn.
Dilemmaet
Tenk deg en 8 måneder gammel baby. Elsket av sine foreldre. Tilsynelatende frisk og sunn og utvikler seg normalt. En dag begynner babyen å oppføre seg rart. Den får en slags epileptiske anfall. Den gråter mye. Har åpenbart smerter. En legekontroll og etterfølgende undersøkelse av spesialist avdekker en svulst i hjernen. Heldigvis har vi kommet så langt innen medisinen at svulsten avdekkes tidlig. Et kirurgisk inngrep og strålebehandling klarer å fjerne den. Barnet overlever. Det får vokse opp til selv å bli lege en dag, 32 år senere.
Ingen av oss tviler på at vi må gjøre alt som står i vår makt for å redde livet til dette barnet. Babyer får jevnlige kontroller for å sjekke at de vokser og utvikler seg normalt. Oppdages noe galt, så får de den beste behandling helsevesenet kan tilby. Samfunnet bruker enorme summer på helsetjenester, og på å forske frem nye behandlingsmetoder og legemidler mot ulike sykdommer og tilstander.
Disse ressursene brukes primært på mennesker utenfor mors mage, men i blant også på fostre, i den grad det er mulig. Før et visst utviklingsstadie griper vi likevel ikke inn medisinsk for å behandle fostre. Kommer vi ned til embryonivå, altså før niende svangerskapsuke, eller helt tilbake til få dager etter eggets befruktning, så gjøres selvsagt ingen medisinske eller kirurgiske inngrep på det lille menneskelivet i mors mage. Det fullverdige menneskelivet.
Hvorfor ikke? Vi ville ikke tillatt at den åtte måneder gamle babyen bare døde. Vi ville ikke bare konstatert at det var livets naturlige gang, og så latt det dø. Nei, fordi vi anser en baby som et fullverdig liv som har rett på vår beskyttelse og på behandling, akkurat som et voksent menneske har. Men abortmotstandere mener det samme prinsippet gjelder et embryo. Det er et fullverdig liv, sier de. Ingenting skiller det fra en 28 år gammel kvinne målt i rent menneskeverd.
Paradokset
Da tvinger spørsmålet seg frem: Hvor er kampen fra abortmotstandere for å omdirigere store deler av våre helsebudsjetter over i å overvåke befruktede egg i mors liv? Hvor er den moralske indignasjonen over at vi ikke bruker millioner på millioner av kroner på å behandle embryoer som er skadde på ulike vis? Hvor er ropene etter å forske på hvordan vi kan sikre de befruktede eggene mot spontanaborter?
Man regner tross alt med at rundt halvparten av alle befruktede egg ender opp i en spontanabort. Rundt 10-15 prosent av alle bekreftede graviditeter avsluttes på denne måten, altså at embryoet eller fosteret støtes ut av moren innen 22. svangerskapsuke. Det betyr at rundt 50-60 000 små fullverdige menneskeliv går tapt hvert eneste år. Uten at vi løfter en finger for å forhindre det.
Dette er liv som kanskje kunne vært reddet. Men i motsetning til babyen med kreftsvulst, så gjøres lite for å jevnlig kontrollere det befruktede egget. Vi har ikke kunnskapen eller teknologien. Det gjøres lite eller ingenting for å behandle og redde de enorme antall fullverdige ukergamle menneskeliv som avsluttes naturlig på denne måten. Hvorfor er det slik?
«Jammen, dette er jo som regel naturlige konsekvenser av kromosomfeil eller andre utviklingsskader,» vil mange forsvare seg med. Dette er graviditeter som skal avsluttes naturlig, fordi embryoet eller fosterer ikke har livets rett. De har ulike typer skader, og det er bedre at de dør. Men gjelder ikke det i så fall også for babyen med kreft i hjernen? Hvis dette argumentet holder for det lille livet i mors mage, hvorfor da ikke for babyen? De har jo nøyaktig samme rett til å leve? Hvorfor sier vi ikke at kreft er en naturlig konsekvens av en eller annen genetiske skade, og dermed skal vi ikke behandle babyer eller voksne heller?
Konklusjon
I det man begynner å drøfte dette, så tror jeg at mange abortmotstandere vil møte seg selv i døren. For et sted bak i hodet oppdager de at de setter et skille i menneskeverd likevel. De føler intuitivt at det er feil å bruke store ressurser på å diagnostisere og foreta avanserte medisinske inngrep for å redde et 5 uker gammelt embryo slik at det ikke spontanaborteres, men ikke for å redde en åtte måneder gammel baby. De har satt et skille i menneskeverd et sted inni seg. Mens de mener det ikke finnes noe tidsmessig grense for når et barn kan aborteres, så mener de det finnes en tidsmessig grense for når vi skal sette inn ressurser på å redde det.
Jeg mener at man alltid må strebe etter å være konsistent i sin argumentasjon, og ulvene skal vite at vi alle feiler på det området. Men det er nyttig og sunt å peke ut slike inkonsistenser når de finnes. Det kan gi nyttige perspektiver.
Det er logisk selvmotsigende å si at et embryo er et fullverdig menneskeliv og dermed aldri kan aborteres, og samtidig ikke argumentere for at vi skal tilby nøyaktig de samme ressurser for diagnostisering og behandling av embryoer som av babyer eller voksne mennesker. Er du kategorisk motstander av abort på grunnlag av at celleklumpen er et ukrenkelig menneske fra og med befruktningsøyeblikket, ja, så må du strengt tatt også være enig i at brorparten av våre helsebudsjetter burde omdirigeres fra å helbrede barn og voksne fra ulike sykdommer, og over til å bekjempe de millioner av spontanaborter som skjer hele tiden.
I et samfunn med begrensede ressurser til helse ville selvsagt det bety at du selv kanskje ikke fikk den beste medisinske hjelp neste gang du er alvorlig syk. Det ville bety at vi måtte avslutte mye forskning på å bekjempe kreft og andre alvorlige sykdommer. Det dør tross alt 5-6 ganger flere mennesker i spontanaborter enn av kreft hvert år, så her må man åpenbart omprioritere helsebudsjettene drastisk. Det ville bety at enorme ressurser ville gå til å forsøke å redde små celleklumper som sannsynligvis ville ende opp født med store defekter og skader likevel. Det ville bety at mange flere barn og voksne ville lide og dø fordi vi ikke lenger har ressurser til å hjelpe dem.
Men det får vi tåle. Det finnes tross alt ikke noe sted på utviklingslinjen hvor menneskeverdet inntreffer. Dermed blir det uetisk ikke å yte også embryoene og fostrene den beste medisinske hjelp tilgjengelig. Embryoene er like viktige som oss andre. De har akkurat samme menneskeverd. Det finnes ingen grense for dette. Ikke sant?
http://tjomlid.com/2014/02/04/abort-og-paradokset-om-menneskeverd/
Balanta (1992) AMTG-cut-01(1).avi
A Fine Frenzy - Almost Lover Official Video
Under gårsdagens bloggpost om foster-dukken endte kommentarfeltet i stor grad opp i en debatt for eller mot abort. Det var vel som forventet, og det er en debatt vi aldri kan, eller bør, bli ferdig med.
Hovedargumentet til de som er motstandere av abort er at livet starter i det egget befruktes. Fra det øyeblikk er det et fullverdig menneskeliv. Det har potensialet til å bli et fullvoksent menneske gitt nok tid, ergo kan man ikke definere noen periode etter befruktningen hvor man kategorisk kan si at dette ennå ikke er et menneske. Utviklingen fra befruktet egg til en 80 år gammel mann er gradvis og flytende, og det finnes ikke noe punkt på denne utviklingen hvor egenskapen «menneske» plutselig dukker opp – annet enn ved selve befruktningen.
Utilitarisme
Det er etter mitt syn en rimelig slutning å dra, og derfor finnes det ikke noe absolutt korrekt tidsgrense for når vi kan tillate abort. Man må innta et utilitaristisk perspektiv og tenke at konsekvensene av en handling skal være et gode for flest mulig mennesker. Sett i dette praktiske lys støtter jeg retten til selvbestemt abort til og med 12. svangerskapsuke. Alternativet er en grov undertrykking av kvinners rett til å bestemme over egen kropp, fryktelig stor helserisiko ved illegale aborter, og neppe noen reduksjon i antall aborter uansett. Et abortforbud vil altså totalt sett føre til mer lidelse for flere mennesker enn hva lov om selvbestemt abort gjør.
Abortmotstandere kjøper ikke den. De mener at man ikke kan innta et rent pragmatisk eller utilitaristisk syn på abort. På samme måte som vi ikke kan si at det i blant er greit å drepe et voksent menneske, eller en baby for den saks skyld, kan vi ikke drepe embryoer og fostre. Uansett når man tar livet av noen, fire uker, fire måneder eller fire år etter eggets befruktning, avslutter man et menneskeliv. Det er etisk sett fullstendig galt, i følge mange abortmotstandere. De likestiller abort med drap.
Det er lett å være enig. Det er som nevnt umulig å sette noe absolutt punkt på utviklingslinjen til et menneske hvor man kan hevde at det ikke ennå er et menneske. Man kan forsøke, men svaret vil alltid avhenge av hvordan man definerer et menneske, og det vil være umulig å komme frem til en generell enighet om dette. Men om man velger å se bort fra det utilitaristiske perspektiv og inntar en holdning hvor selv et embryo fortjener samme respekt og beskyttelse som et voksent menneske, så støter man på noen problemer. Man kan nemlig ikke bare se én side av saken, og her bommer abortmotstanderne grovt, etter mitt syn.
Dilemmaet
Tenk deg en 8 måneder gammel baby. Elsket av sine foreldre. Tilsynelatende frisk og sunn og utvikler seg normalt. En dag begynner babyen å oppføre seg rart. Den får en slags epileptiske anfall. Den gråter mye. Har åpenbart smerter. En legekontroll og etterfølgende undersøkelse av spesialist avdekker en svulst i hjernen. Heldigvis har vi kommet så langt innen medisinen at svulsten avdekkes tidlig. Et kirurgisk inngrep og strålebehandling klarer å fjerne den. Barnet overlever. Det får vokse opp til selv å bli lege en dag, 32 år senere.
Ingen av oss tviler på at vi må gjøre alt som står i vår makt for å redde livet til dette barnet. Babyer får jevnlige kontroller for å sjekke at de vokser og utvikler seg normalt. Oppdages noe galt, så får de den beste behandling helsevesenet kan tilby. Samfunnet bruker enorme summer på helsetjenester, og på å forske frem nye behandlingsmetoder og legemidler mot ulike sykdommer og tilstander.
Disse ressursene brukes primært på mennesker utenfor mors mage, men i blant også på fostre, i den grad det er mulig. Før et visst utviklingsstadie griper vi likevel ikke inn medisinsk for å behandle fostre. Kommer vi ned til embryonivå, altså før niende svangerskapsuke, eller helt tilbake til få dager etter eggets befruktning, så gjøres selvsagt ingen medisinske eller kirurgiske inngrep på det lille menneskelivet i mors mage. Det fullverdige menneskelivet.
Hvorfor ikke? Vi ville ikke tillatt at den åtte måneder gamle babyen bare døde. Vi ville ikke bare konstatert at det var livets naturlige gang, og så latt det dø. Nei, fordi vi anser en baby som et fullverdig liv som har rett på vår beskyttelse og på behandling, akkurat som et voksent menneske har. Men abortmotstandere mener det samme prinsippet gjelder et embryo. Det er et fullverdig liv, sier de. Ingenting skiller det fra en 28 år gammel kvinne målt i rent menneskeverd.
Paradokset
Da tvinger spørsmålet seg frem: Hvor er kampen fra abortmotstandere for å omdirigere store deler av våre helsebudsjetter over i å overvåke befruktede egg i mors liv? Hvor er den moralske indignasjonen over at vi ikke bruker millioner på millioner av kroner på å behandle embryoer som er skadde på ulike vis? Hvor er ropene etter å forske på hvordan vi kan sikre de befruktede eggene mot spontanaborter?
Man regner tross alt med at rundt halvparten av alle befruktede egg ender opp i en spontanabort. Rundt 10-15 prosent av alle bekreftede graviditeter avsluttes på denne måten, altså at embryoet eller fosteret støtes ut av moren innen 22. svangerskapsuke. Det betyr at rundt 50-60 000 små fullverdige menneskeliv går tapt hvert eneste år. Uten at vi løfter en finger for å forhindre det.
Dette er liv som kanskje kunne vært reddet. Men i motsetning til babyen med kreftsvulst, så gjøres lite for å jevnlig kontrollere det befruktede egget. Vi har ikke kunnskapen eller teknologien. Det gjøres lite eller ingenting for å behandle og redde de enorme antall fullverdige ukergamle menneskeliv som avsluttes naturlig på denne måten. Hvorfor er det slik?
«Jammen, dette er jo som regel naturlige konsekvenser av kromosomfeil eller andre utviklingsskader,» vil mange forsvare seg med. Dette er graviditeter som skal avsluttes naturlig, fordi embryoet eller fosterer ikke har livets rett. De har ulike typer skader, og det er bedre at de dør. Men gjelder ikke det i så fall også for babyen med kreft i hjernen? Hvis dette argumentet holder for det lille livet i mors mage, hvorfor da ikke for babyen? De har jo nøyaktig samme rett til å leve? Hvorfor sier vi ikke at kreft er en naturlig konsekvens av en eller annen genetiske skade, og dermed skal vi ikke behandle babyer eller voksne heller?
Konklusjon
I det man begynner å drøfte dette, så tror jeg at mange abortmotstandere vil møte seg selv i døren. For et sted bak i hodet oppdager de at de setter et skille i menneskeverd likevel. De føler intuitivt at det er feil å bruke store ressurser på å diagnostisere og foreta avanserte medisinske inngrep for å redde et 5 uker gammelt embryo slik at det ikke spontanaborteres, men ikke for å redde en åtte måneder gammel baby. De har satt et skille i menneskeverd et sted inni seg. Mens de mener det ikke finnes noe tidsmessig grense for når et barn kan aborteres, så mener de det finnes en tidsmessig grense for når vi skal sette inn ressurser på å redde det.
Jeg mener at man alltid må strebe etter å være konsistent i sin argumentasjon, og ulvene skal vite at vi alle feiler på det området. Men det er nyttig og sunt å peke ut slike inkonsistenser når de finnes. Det kan gi nyttige perspektiver.
Det er logisk selvmotsigende å si at et embryo er et fullverdig menneskeliv og dermed aldri kan aborteres, og samtidig ikke argumentere for at vi skal tilby nøyaktig de samme ressurser for diagnostisering og behandling av embryoer som av babyer eller voksne mennesker. Er du kategorisk motstander av abort på grunnlag av at celleklumpen er et ukrenkelig menneske fra og med befruktningsøyeblikket, ja, så må du strengt tatt også være enig i at brorparten av våre helsebudsjetter burde omdirigeres fra å helbrede barn og voksne fra ulike sykdommer, og over til å bekjempe de millioner av spontanaborter som skjer hele tiden.
I et samfunn med begrensede ressurser til helse ville selvsagt det bety at du selv kanskje ikke fikk den beste medisinske hjelp neste gang du er alvorlig syk. Det ville bety at vi måtte avslutte mye forskning på å bekjempe kreft og andre alvorlige sykdommer. Det dør tross alt 5-6 ganger flere mennesker i spontanaborter enn av kreft hvert år, så her må man åpenbart omprioritere helsebudsjettene drastisk. Det ville bety at enorme ressurser ville gå til å forsøke å redde små celleklumper som sannsynligvis ville ende opp født med store defekter og skader likevel. Det ville bety at mange flere barn og voksne ville lide og dø fordi vi ikke lenger har ressurser til å hjelpe dem.
Men det får vi tåle. Det finnes tross alt ikke noe sted på utviklingslinjen hvor menneskeverdet inntreffer. Dermed blir det uetisk ikke å yte også embryoene og fostrene den beste medisinske hjelp tilgjengelig. Embryoene er like viktige som oss andre. De har akkurat samme menneskeverd. Det finnes ingen grense for dette. Ikke sant?
http://tjomlid.com/2014/02/04/abort-og-paradokset-om-menneskeverd/
Balanta (1992) AMTG-cut-01(1).avi
A Fine Frenzy - Almost Lover Official Video
Thursday, February 27, 2014
"Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors."
Has the following ever happened to you?
You meet someone of about your own age and are struck by how attractive that person is. Then, a bit later, you meet that person’s parents and are amazed to find that they are particularly unattractive people. “How is this possible?”, you ask. “How can such a good-looking person be the progeny of such homely parents?”
I have had moments like that a number of times in my life. And, most likely, they can be explained as a purely psychological phenomenon: something like the same color illusion, where minor/nonexistent differences are enhanced by contrast.
Nonetheless, it occurred to me a little while ago to ask a sort of audacious and perhaps silly question. Namely, is there some reason why people tend to be more attractive than their parents? Is it possible that each generation actually is more attractive than the previous?
Let me present a rough argument, given below, as to why that might be the case. It’s a fairly unconvincing and perhaps completely meritless piece of speculation, but either way I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
A crude argument: genetics as a process of averaging
There has been a fair amount of research during the last decade which suggests that averageness is attractive, at least when it comes to facial features. What I mean is this: if you take a bunch of faces and then you average their features together, the resulting “average” face will probably be more attractive than any of the individual faces that went into it. There are lots of cool demos on the internet showing this phenomenon; they’re pretty fun to play around with.
There is, of course, an evolutionary argument for why this should be true: evolution tends to select for healthy traits and to weed out unhealthy ones, so it makes sense that we should be attracted to the “average” person who possesses good traits rather than to the “uncommon” person who possesses bad traits. It’s not a terribly convincing argument, but then again I rarely feel very convinced by evolutionary arguments.
What I do know is that reproduction is itself sort of a process of averaging. When two people produce a child, that child has some of the father’s attributes, some of the mother’s, and some that are a hybrid of the two. So after many generations, a given child represents a kind of (stochastic) “average” of all the descendants whose genetic material contributed to its own.
So the basic argument is this: if averaging makes a face more attractive, and if every child is an average of his parents, then doesn’t that make a child likely to be more attractive than his parents?
Now, there may be some terrible flaw in my understanding of genetics (or aesthetics) here. It does sound a little silly to claim that humans are getting relentlessly more attractive over time. But you know, I never thought the Venus de Milo (supposedly the ideal of Grecian beauty 70 generations ago) was all that pretty.
http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/is-every-generation-more-attractive-than-the-last-a-postulate/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/beauty/article-1202381/Women-getting-attractive-evolutionary-beauty-race.html
Animal X - Doar tu si eu
Clona-Dime
You meet someone of about your own age and are struck by how attractive that person is. Then, a bit later, you meet that person’s parents and are amazed to find that they are particularly unattractive people. “How is this possible?”, you ask. “How can such a good-looking person be the progeny of such homely parents?”
I have had moments like that a number of times in my life. And, most likely, they can be explained as a purely psychological phenomenon: something like the same color illusion, where minor/nonexistent differences are enhanced by contrast.
Nonetheless, it occurred to me a little while ago to ask a sort of audacious and perhaps silly question. Namely, is there some reason why people tend to be more attractive than their parents? Is it possible that each generation actually is more attractive than the previous?
Let me present a rough argument, given below, as to why that might be the case. It’s a fairly unconvincing and perhaps completely meritless piece of speculation, but either way I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
A crude argument: genetics as a process of averaging
There has been a fair amount of research during the last decade which suggests that averageness is attractive, at least when it comes to facial features. What I mean is this: if you take a bunch of faces and then you average their features together, the resulting “average” face will probably be more attractive than any of the individual faces that went into it. There are lots of cool demos on the internet showing this phenomenon; they’re pretty fun to play around with.
There is, of course, an evolutionary argument for why this should be true: evolution tends to select for healthy traits and to weed out unhealthy ones, so it makes sense that we should be attracted to the “average” person who possesses good traits rather than to the “uncommon” person who possesses bad traits. It’s not a terribly convincing argument, but then again I rarely feel very convinced by evolutionary arguments.
What I do know is that reproduction is itself sort of a process of averaging. When two people produce a child, that child has some of the father’s attributes, some of the mother’s, and some that are a hybrid of the two. So after many generations, a given child represents a kind of (stochastic) “average” of all the descendants whose genetic material contributed to its own.
So the basic argument is this: if averaging makes a face more attractive, and if every child is an average of his parents, then doesn’t that make a child likely to be more attractive than his parents?
Now, there may be some terrible flaw in my understanding of genetics (or aesthetics) here. It does sound a little silly to claim that humans are getting relentlessly more attractive over time. But you know, I never thought the Venus de Milo (supposedly the ideal of Grecian beauty 70 generations ago) was all that pretty.
http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/is-every-generation-more-attractive-than-the-last-a-postulate/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/beauty/article-1202381/Women-getting-attractive-evolutionary-beauty-race.html
Animal X - Doar tu si eu
Clona-Dime
Friday, February 21, 2014
Millennium - The Reconstruction Era
One of the many legacies of the Third Reich is its purge of private art collections. Up to 200,000 art works are thought to have gone missing during the war, says Katya Hills, client development manager at the London-based Art Loss Register, the world’s largest database of lost and stolen art.
The organization is currently on the hunt for 30,000 items listed as looted or missing from this era.
Below is a list—compiled by the Art Loss Register—of the most valuable and famous artworks to have been lost or stolen during World War II. Hills hopes that some of the works may be among the over 1,400 items revealed to have been found in the latest Nazi art bust.
- Raphael, Portrait of a Young Man, 1513/14
Regarded by art historians as Poland’s most famous art loss from WWII, Portrait of a Young Man was taken from the Czartoryski’s family collection in Krakow to be placed in Hitler’s Fuhrer museum in 1939. It went missing at the end of the war, but unverified rumors suggest it was found in a Swiss bank vault last summer.
- Andreas Schlüter: The Amber Room, 18th Century (photo of reconstruction by Polly Gibson)
Dubbed the “Eight Wonder of the World”, this room was made with over six tons of amber and once belonged to the King of Prussia, Peter the Great. It’s thought to have been looted during WWII by the Nazis and taken to the city of Königsberg, never to be seen again. There is however a reconstructed version in the Catherine Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia.
- Vincent van Gogh, The Painter on the Road to Tarascon, 1888
Among van Gogh’s most cherished pieces, this is thought to have burned when the Allied bombed the town of Magdeburg, setting alight the museum it was housed in.
- Giovanni Bellini, Madonna with Child, c.1430
This was evacuated in the early 1940s from a museum in Berlin to be housed in a flak tower in Berlin-Friedrichshain, located within Russian control at the time. Most of the objects in the tower were either looted or presumed destroyed, including Bellini’s Madonna.
- Gustav Klimt, Portrait of Trude Steiner, 1900
A portrait of Viennese collector Jenny Steiner’s daughter, it was seized by the Nazis after she fled Austria in 1938 and subsequently sold in 1941 to an unknown individual, not to be seen since.
- Rembrandt van Rijn, An Angel with Titus’ Features
Stored in a Chateau in the French countryside, the Nazis seized it in 1943 and took it to Paris, where it was set aside for Hitler’s museum, along with 332 other works. 162 of these have been found since, but not this one.
- Peter Paul Rubens, The Annunciation
This painting went missing after it was forcibly sold through the art auctioneer Paul Graupe in Berlin in 1935.
- Canaletto, Piazza Santa Margherita
This Canaletto lived in the private collection of Jacques Goudstikker, whose gallery was seized and purged shortly after he fled the Netherlands in 1940. Parts of the collection have been returned to Goudstikker’s heirs since, but the hunt is still on for this one.
- Edgar Degas, Five Dancing Women (Ballerinas)
The Nazis managed to get a hold of this pastel drawing when they took the collection of Jewish art collector Baron Mór Lipót Herzog. His heirs filed a lawsuit against Hungary to seek the return of part of this collection, but this work is still missing.
- Pissarro, The Boulevard Montmartre, Twilight, 1897
This was part of a collection looted by the Nazis and subsequently sold through a Swiss art dealer in 1941. Though it’s shown up in almost every decade after the war, says Hills, its current location is an enigma.
http://world.time.com/2013/11/07/the-top-10-most-wanted-missing-art-works-from-world-war-ii/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
http://www.policymic.com/articles/71193/5-historical-monuments-have-been-destroyed-forever-during-syria-s-civil-war
http://maca.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/collection/p132501coll33/page/1
.jpg)
The Promise - Michael Nyman
The organization is currently on the hunt for 30,000 items listed as looted or missing from this era.
Below is a list—compiled by the Art Loss Register—of the most valuable and famous artworks to have been lost or stolen during World War II. Hills hopes that some of the works may be among the over 1,400 items revealed to have been found in the latest Nazi art bust.
- Raphael, Portrait of a Young Man, 1513/14
Regarded by art historians as Poland’s most famous art loss from WWII, Portrait of a Young Man was taken from the Czartoryski’s family collection in Krakow to be placed in Hitler’s Fuhrer museum in 1939. It went missing at the end of the war, but unverified rumors suggest it was found in a Swiss bank vault last summer.
- Andreas Schlüter: The Amber Room, 18th Century (photo of reconstruction by Polly Gibson)
Dubbed the “Eight Wonder of the World”, this room was made with over six tons of amber and once belonged to the King of Prussia, Peter the Great. It’s thought to have been looted during WWII by the Nazis and taken to the city of Königsberg, never to be seen again. There is however a reconstructed version in the Catherine Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia.
- Vincent van Gogh, The Painter on the Road to Tarascon, 1888
Among van Gogh’s most cherished pieces, this is thought to have burned when the Allied bombed the town of Magdeburg, setting alight the museum it was housed in.
- Giovanni Bellini, Madonna with Child, c.1430
This was evacuated in the early 1940s from a museum in Berlin to be housed in a flak tower in Berlin-Friedrichshain, located within Russian control at the time. Most of the objects in the tower were either looted or presumed destroyed, including Bellini’s Madonna.
- Gustav Klimt, Portrait of Trude Steiner, 1900
A portrait of Viennese collector Jenny Steiner’s daughter, it was seized by the Nazis after she fled Austria in 1938 and subsequently sold in 1941 to an unknown individual, not to be seen since.
- Rembrandt van Rijn, An Angel with Titus’ Features
Stored in a Chateau in the French countryside, the Nazis seized it in 1943 and took it to Paris, where it was set aside for Hitler’s museum, along with 332 other works. 162 of these have been found since, but not this one.
- Peter Paul Rubens, The Annunciation
This painting went missing after it was forcibly sold through the art auctioneer Paul Graupe in Berlin in 1935.
- Canaletto, Piazza Santa Margherita
This Canaletto lived in the private collection of Jacques Goudstikker, whose gallery was seized and purged shortly after he fled the Netherlands in 1940. Parts of the collection have been returned to Goudstikker’s heirs since, but the hunt is still on for this one.
- Edgar Degas, Five Dancing Women (Ballerinas)
The Nazis managed to get a hold of this pastel drawing when they took the collection of Jewish art collector Baron Mór Lipót Herzog. His heirs filed a lawsuit against Hungary to seek the return of part of this collection, but this work is still missing.
- Pissarro, The Boulevard Montmartre, Twilight, 1897
This was part of a collection looted by the Nazis and subsequently sold through a Swiss art dealer in 1941. Though it’s shown up in almost every decade after the war, says Hills, its current location is an enigma.
http://world.time.com/2013/11/07/the-top-10-most-wanted-missing-art-works-from-world-war-ii/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
http://www.policymic.com/articles/71193/5-historical-monuments-have-been-destroyed-forever-during-syria-s-civil-war
http://maca.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/collection/p132501coll33/page/1
The Promise - Michael Nyman
Monday, February 17, 2014
sick and renew :)
Why does practically everything take longer to create than to destroy?
Charlie, Leiden The Netherlands
Because the universe always tends towards a more disorganised state; check out the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
D. Morgan, Amsterdam NL
By definition, the process of creation has to be structured and logical in order that you have a useful end product. Distruction, however, can be random and incoherent. Actions which take little or no thought can be done much faster than those which must be carefully considered.
Rick Webber, London uk
Tattoos don't.
Mark Prosser, Berne Switzerland
Because of entropy. When you create something you need to arrange the parts very carefully in order to make sure that what you are creating is as you want it to be. This takes time. When you destroy something it does not matter where the constituent parts go, as long as they are removed from the previous ordered state. This can be done in a very short time.
Simon, Hinchley Wood UK
This is a complicated one - basically, entropy (or disorder) is always on the increase, so more work is required to create than to destroy - but this work itself causes more entropy in the universe as a whole (try searching on "Maxwell's demon" for a detailed explanation.)
Jeff Vagg, Beckenham Great Britain
Destruction is a more general term than creation. Take, for example, a cake. To create it, you must arrange its consituent parts in a specific fashion. to destory it, you need only to throw it into the cat's litter tray. But if its destruction were as thorough as its creation, that is, if it were to be seperated back out into its constituent parts, the process of cake destruction would take as long, if not much longer, than cake creation. Or, I could have simply said, "because creation is a finer and more exacting art than destruction," but then one should never begin a sentence with 'because', should one?
Rob Redman, Brighton United Kingdom
Entropy!
Glyn Baker, S. Ockendon U.K
When you create something, you are concerned with the end state. This means that there is only one possible arrangement of the materials that will satisfy you, so you have to stick to the correct situation. When you destroy you are unconcerned about the fial state: any one of millions of different shapes of rubble lying around will do, so you need to take far less care. The entropy of the system (the number of possible orderings of the elements)is being reduced to one when you make, but increase when you destroy, and the natural behaviour of entropy in any system is to increase (ask a statistician why).
Jacob Steel, Cambridge England
Entropy. It takes more engery to create order than to create disorder. This is true for any system and it goes for the universe as a whole apparently, and is why an eventual 'winding-down' into cold and darkness is inevitable.
Martin Crawley, Lee-on-the-Solent UK
It doesn't. If I were to ask you to exactly recreate a particular pile of rubble, smashed window or torn shirt, you would find the task extremely difficult, if not impossible. The illusion that destruction is easier than creation reflects the fact that virtually all arrangements of matter are of little or no use to us. Thus, when I randomly rearrange a toaster (by hitting it with a mallet), although I have "created" something that would be very difficult to recreate consciously, the resulting object is of no use to us. Similarly, no permutation of lottery balls is any more or less likely than any other, but the ones we are interested in constitute a very small proportion of the possible outcomes. Creating any particular object is thus more difficult than obtaining any other arrangement of matter for the same reason that manually picking six balls from a pile of forty-nine is harder than just grabbing any old six.
Nick Hare, London
Entropy, the universal rule of order sliding towards chaos. Or gravity. Or the law of averages - more bad things than good: for example, Celine Dion's Greatest Hits; how long to create? 10 seconds to destroy.
David Neill, Stirling Scotland
I'm no physicist, but the way I understand it is based down something like this: Everything in the universe has a level of entropy or order. The higher the level of entropy the more order. Everything 'wants' to have a lower level of entropy or more disorder. This is basically because there are many more possible states of disorder than order. Does this make sense or is it just a jumbled mass of randomly assembled letters?
Rob, London UK
One of the frightening things about nuclear power stations is that they take almost infinitely longer to destroy than create (or use).
Jake Arnott, Bristol UK
How nice that - amid a population of contributors conditioned by physics - a person of metaphysical sensibilities (Nick Hare) contributed an answer. Not all creation is a process of rational thought - take the Surrealists for example, and the Oriental artists & poets. A masterwork can be created in the wink of an eye, no pre-defined outcome is necessary, or even desirable.
Nicola, Montreal Canada
Sorry Nicola, but in fact Nick Hare's contribution was the most mechanistic. Most other answers were conscious of the "human" view (as Nick says) that what we usually think of as "creations" have a purpose. This purpose could be practical or (in the case of works of art) aesthetic. Nick removed humanity and the physical world completely from the picture, reducing it to an issue of mathematics (specifically, probability). In my view, entropy is one of the many concepts originating in physics which enhance (rather than stifle) artistic endeavour. It's a shame that so many people are conditioned to see art and science as mutually exclusive.
Tim Waterfield, Cambridge England
I could create an argument with an ex girlfriend in a blink of an eye which could take 2 or 3 days to destroy.
Chris , Lyon, France
Believe you me, it is very easy to create a beer belly - it takes years of hard work and discipline to destroy it.
Oliver Benson, Luton, UK
Nick Hare's answer strikes me as being brilliant. I disagree with those responses which perceive entropy as being no more than a tendency to disorder. When entropy runs to completion energy/mass will be distributed evenly throughout the universe. How much more order do you want?
Foggy, Warrington UK
Because of our bad nature that pushes us to be destroyers rather than creators.
A. Ali, London UK
Creation is a positive term, loaded with notions of order and directed effort, while destruction implies disorder and a lack of concern. However, constructing a desired arrangement of matter, irrespective of what it looks like or what purpose it serves, generally takes longer than carelessly rearranging it. All other factors being equal, doing anything carefully, whether creating or destroying, generally takes longer than doing it carelessly.
John, London
Aura Urziceanu Mai ramai..
Charlie, Leiden The Netherlands
Because the universe always tends towards a more disorganised state; check out the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
D. Morgan, Amsterdam NL
By definition, the process of creation has to be structured and logical in order that you have a useful end product. Distruction, however, can be random and incoherent. Actions which take little or no thought can be done much faster than those which must be carefully considered.
Rick Webber, London uk
Tattoos don't.
Mark Prosser, Berne Switzerland
Because of entropy. When you create something you need to arrange the parts very carefully in order to make sure that what you are creating is as you want it to be. This takes time. When you destroy something it does not matter where the constituent parts go, as long as they are removed from the previous ordered state. This can be done in a very short time.
Simon, Hinchley Wood UK
This is a complicated one - basically, entropy (or disorder) is always on the increase, so more work is required to create than to destroy - but this work itself causes more entropy in the universe as a whole (try searching on "Maxwell's demon" for a detailed explanation.)
Jeff Vagg, Beckenham Great Britain
Destruction is a more general term than creation. Take, for example, a cake. To create it, you must arrange its consituent parts in a specific fashion. to destory it, you need only to throw it into the cat's litter tray. But if its destruction were as thorough as its creation, that is, if it were to be seperated back out into its constituent parts, the process of cake destruction would take as long, if not much longer, than cake creation. Or, I could have simply said, "because creation is a finer and more exacting art than destruction," but then one should never begin a sentence with 'because', should one?
Rob Redman, Brighton United Kingdom
Entropy!
Glyn Baker, S. Ockendon U.K
When you create something, you are concerned with the end state. This means that there is only one possible arrangement of the materials that will satisfy you, so you have to stick to the correct situation. When you destroy you are unconcerned about the fial state: any one of millions of different shapes of rubble lying around will do, so you need to take far less care. The entropy of the system (the number of possible orderings of the elements)is being reduced to one when you make, but increase when you destroy, and the natural behaviour of entropy in any system is to increase (ask a statistician why).
Jacob Steel, Cambridge England
Entropy. It takes more engery to create order than to create disorder. This is true for any system and it goes for the universe as a whole apparently, and is why an eventual 'winding-down' into cold and darkness is inevitable.
Martin Crawley, Lee-on-the-Solent UK
It doesn't. If I were to ask you to exactly recreate a particular pile of rubble, smashed window or torn shirt, you would find the task extremely difficult, if not impossible. The illusion that destruction is easier than creation reflects the fact that virtually all arrangements of matter are of little or no use to us. Thus, when I randomly rearrange a toaster (by hitting it with a mallet), although I have "created" something that would be very difficult to recreate consciously, the resulting object is of no use to us. Similarly, no permutation of lottery balls is any more or less likely than any other, but the ones we are interested in constitute a very small proportion of the possible outcomes. Creating any particular object is thus more difficult than obtaining any other arrangement of matter for the same reason that manually picking six balls from a pile of forty-nine is harder than just grabbing any old six.
Nick Hare, London
Entropy, the universal rule of order sliding towards chaos. Or gravity. Or the law of averages - more bad things than good: for example, Celine Dion's Greatest Hits; how long to create? 10 seconds to destroy.
David Neill, Stirling Scotland
I'm no physicist, but the way I understand it is based down something like this: Everything in the universe has a level of entropy or order. The higher the level of entropy the more order. Everything 'wants' to have a lower level of entropy or more disorder. This is basically because there are many more possible states of disorder than order. Does this make sense or is it just a jumbled mass of randomly assembled letters?
Rob, London UK
One of the frightening things about nuclear power stations is that they take almost infinitely longer to destroy than create (or use).
Jake Arnott, Bristol UK
How nice that - amid a population of contributors conditioned by physics - a person of metaphysical sensibilities (Nick Hare) contributed an answer. Not all creation is a process of rational thought - take the Surrealists for example, and the Oriental artists & poets. A masterwork can be created in the wink of an eye, no pre-defined outcome is necessary, or even desirable.
Nicola, Montreal Canada
Sorry Nicola, but in fact Nick Hare's contribution was the most mechanistic. Most other answers were conscious of the "human" view (as Nick says) that what we usually think of as "creations" have a purpose. This purpose could be practical or (in the case of works of art) aesthetic. Nick removed humanity and the physical world completely from the picture, reducing it to an issue of mathematics (specifically, probability). In my view, entropy is one of the many concepts originating in physics which enhance (rather than stifle) artistic endeavour. It's a shame that so many people are conditioned to see art and science as mutually exclusive.
Tim Waterfield, Cambridge England
I could create an argument with an ex girlfriend in a blink of an eye which could take 2 or 3 days to destroy.
Chris , Lyon, France
Believe you me, it is very easy to create a beer belly - it takes years of hard work and discipline to destroy it.
Oliver Benson, Luton, UK
Nick Hare's answer strikes me as being brilliant. I disagree with those responses which perceive entropy as being no more than a tendency to disorder. When entropy runs to completion energy/mass will be distributed evenly throughout the universe. How much more order do you want?
Foggy, Warrington UK
Because of our bad nature that pushes us to be destroyers rather than creators.
A. Ali, London UK
Creation is a positive term, loaded with notions of order and directed effort, while destruction implies disorder and a lack of concern. However, constructing a desired arrangement of matter, irrespective of what it looks like or what purpose it serves, generally takes longer than carelessly rearranging it. All other factors being equal, doing anything carefully, whether creating or destroying, generally takes longer than doing it carelessly.
John, London
Aura Urziceanu Mai ramai..
Saturday, February 15, 2014
cameras in the cable box
Big Brother Alert: Cameras in the Cable Box to Monitor TV
DTV Cable Box with camera and mic in it? Check it out!
Camera in your cable boxes and satellite boxes
Video Camera in Cable Box System to Monitor Public
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)