And don’t say “humankind”, that’s no fun.

Throughout our lives we sacrifice many things for money- relationships, comfort, time- if I can rationally decide, with no duress, that dispensing with an organ is my preferred mode of raising money why should I be prevented from doing so? Particularly given that it may save the life of someone in urgent need.

I’ve always wondered. Every swimmer says they hate the early starts. So swim later. YOU HAVE ALL DAY TO SWIM! The races are often at night. Pools are indoors. It makes no sense!!

I’m genuinely curious!! Do we start to realise our own existence at the age of 7? For some, never? Or are we conscious even within the womb?

New media offers great opportunities for play but creators should continue to be rewarded for their original work, including those creators showing originality in sampled or remixed works. But how do we determine what homages, samples and remixes demonstrate genuine originality and creativity? It matters to me because I work in the arts sector alongside creators and creative works, and others should care about it because the world is going to become a boring place if creators start doing something else because they feel their work just gets ripped off by others without reward or recognition.

Transplant technology has come so far so just extending the concept further to see what ethical and medical challenges might arise if it were to be possible

It seemed the obvious question to ask and it doesn’t matter to me but I will be interested in any responses.

You know what i mean….

We need more people with disabilities employed as leaders. We need flexible workplaces that don’t just reward people based on the amount of hours they can work. We need deeper understanding in recruitment processes to why not everyone has a linear career path or the opportunity for any kind of regular employment.

It horrified people in the 1940s to have packet mixes, because powdered egg reminded them of the Great Depression. Now, people are oblivious, they expect everything to be in packets and forget the chemicals needed to preserve those foods. No more weevils in the flour, but yes plenty of good-fashioned-modern petrol in our flour, sugar, salt, cheese, bread… as well as our bottles of ‘self-care’ products we’re told are ‘necessary.’ You’d think every house-hold was a hotel for astronauts.

I’m fascinated by moral integrity, greed and art. I also have mixed feelings about didacticism, especially in art. My question stems from a recent ethics forum centred on Art and Ethics where an esteemed ethicist provoked the audience with the statement that the only ethical art was one that instructed or commented on Climate Change (and/or social inequality).

There is so much to consider – finding appropriate continental/ethnic/gender balance, avoiding anyone who may upset a particular group…… Can anyone come up with even two people to agree upon?

People have great ideas all the time- how to help those in need, starting with providing water where there is none, sanitary and hygiene products where they are lacking, food and shelter to those without… but do politicians ever change? We keep electing and fostering a system where the greediest are given the role of decision makers… why is that?