I have many relatives and friends who have died from tobacco related illnesses. We should all care about this. Tobacco is different even from other ‘vices’ (including alcohol) in that it has no health benefit even at low doses. Selling tobacco with its known problems is a ‘dangerous act that knowingly puts the health of others at risk’. These are two important manslaughter criteria. Is the absence of ‘intent to kill’ enough to exclude it?

The work life balance eternal pursuit is more and more relevant as we have more educated experienced women who choose family life over career ambition in spite of supportive partners ..

I’m curious.

I guess I find it a fascinating question because, if the answer is ‘yes’ (and I think it probably is), that runs quite contrary to the current obsession with science and truth and makes story-telling and art-play far more important.

I grew up in cities, but have lived in the provinces for over 20 years, and find it to be a refreshingly connected place to live. I rail against the snobbery of city folk towards ‘country folk’. We have just as many great ideas and cultural practises as cities do.

I’m asking because it is a question, after standstill discussions with peers — some for; some against — I cannot clarify to myself what I believe. To have this question answered would not only put my mind at ease, but influence how I see the world and go about my life.

Like many others, my husband and I are increasingly convinced that living like this is the best thing we can do for the planet. However, I recently read an article that spoke of the many who believe the opposite. They argue that developing increasingly sophisticated technologies, such as higher levels of artificial intelligence, is the best solution to most, if not all, of our problems – and they have the money and power to make these technologies reality. The article also posited the question, ‘Would I want a future foisted upon me by [Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc] Andreessen and his fellow founders?’ This prospect frightens me – as it would many others. Can we resist this vision of the future?

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

Because it’s universal.

Just a tongue-in-cheek way of getting to a productive discussion and maybe shaking some skeletons out of the cupboards and wardrobes.

Utinni. Utinni utinni utinni? utinni!

Viewed from an economic perspective, does the arts suffer from something similar to the military-industrial complex, minus the extreme violence? It seems like everyone in the arts think that more funding will fix all our problems. I was thinking of this in the light of ever growing artistic output and too much choice that the inner city life has to offer, and the idea that art is like violence in the sense that it will continue to be practiced impulsively by humans regardless of funding. To me, what seems to motivate reasonable decisions and priorities as governments struggle to allocate resources justly is the education and learning environment people have access to rather than the size of our arts or “defence” budget.

Nauru is in such a parlous state of dysfunction that New Zealand has just announced it is no longer willing to fund its justice system. Staff who report the abuse are sacked and medical staff now confront the threat of a two-year jail sentence for reporting the abuse of women and children. I am worried we have that we have become a country that denies people their basic human rights.