Are adult criminals bred of bad seed and guilty ovum? Are infants born guilty? Is there such a thing as a natural proclivity for the “Infant Criminal” born of color and of poverty that is set, from the day of first breath, to destroy society and its conceits as a rite of birth?

The Bad Seed!


This matter of born-guilty children was raised in a recent Urban Semiotic article called A Badge, a Blood and Orange Bloodshed and the comments at the end of that article became so heated that some of the commenters never came back here again.

Why is there such a need to blame the baby after it grows into the behavior of the adult?

The BBC recently reported there’s a move afoot in the UK to brand “menacing” babies early in their lives so they cannot later disrupt society:

Mr Blair said it was possible to spot the families whose circumstances made it likely their children would grow up to be a “menace to society”.  He said teenage mums and problem families could be forced to take help to head off difficulties.  He said the government had to intervene much earlier to prevent
problems developing when children were older.

In an article titled, Is Chemistry Destiny?, New York Times writer David Brooks reports:

Now, it is generally believed, our behavior is powerfully influenced by genes and hormones. Our temperaments are shaped by whether we happened to be born with the right mix of chemicals.

Consciousness has come to be seen as this relatively weak driver, riding atop an organ, the brain, it scarcely understands. When we read that male voles with longer vasopressin genes are more likely to remain monogamous, it seems plausible that so fundamental a quality could be tied to some discrete bit of biology.

This shift in how we see human behavior is bound to have huge effects.

Freudianism encouraged people to think about destroying inhibitions.  This new understanding both validates ancient stereotypes about the sexes, and fuzzes up moral judgments about human responsibility (biology inclines individuals toward certain virtues and vices).

If we are genetically marked to behave in certain way, should we be finding methods to better identify and prosecute and incarcerate infants — or even mothers bearing “rotten fetuses” — that science and technology reveal to be
“Bad Seeds” in uteri?

Why strain the criminal justice system with children and adults that we know before they are ever born cannot ever be salvaged or rehabilitated into proper members of society?

Should we create a “Righteous Reclamation” program that will promote only predictably good infants and weed the bad seeds out of society before bad sperm ever touches guilty ovum?

Doesn’t it benefit society to remove charismatic madmen before they kill and to pre-punish the thoughts and cravings of the socially demented and the criminally inclined?

57 Comments

  1. David- It doesn’t sound as if Mr. Blair was considering his own family as one that may have raised someone who was a menace to society. Many people i’m sure would include his family as one of the major raisers of such a menace. Who is really to judge? He also doesn’t seem to consider that he could have helped cause some “problem families” with too much “force” to begin with. Who judges the judges. His thinking seems a little simplistic to me.

  2. Mr Blair has advocated “pre-birth intervention” – I blogged about it a while back http://tinyurl.com/yz4oyk
    Fred makes some interesting comments about his family – dodgy financial dealings, the cash for peerages debate, the well known and documented drinking escapades of his son. Also there is the behaviour of his fellow cabinet ministers which includes adultery, punching and brawling .
    In fact you might like to see what the rest of the house of commons is like here
    http://msdemmie.wordpress.com/2006/03/14/would-you-could-you/
    Maybe they should start with themselves!

  3. David- Once the negative concept “bad” is accepted, a whole bunch of conclusions will “logically” follow. It seems to end up with the “breeding of the master race.” Many members in the “Royal Family,” could be considered a “menace to society,” according to the views of many people. Would Tony go after them? What really did happen to Lady Di?

  4. Thanks for filling in the details, Nicola, and thanks for your excellent articles and thanks for giving me that BBC story about the “menace children” — it’s been stewing here ever since until today!
    😀
    What is the feeling in the UK about “bad seeds?” Do people support Blair’s idea of policing the womb or not?

  5. Thanks for filling in the details, Nicola, and thanks for your excellent articles and thanks for giving me that BBC story about the “menace children” — it’s been stewing here ever since until today!
    😀
    What is the feeling in the UK about “bad seeds?” Do people support Blair’s idea of policing the womb or not?

  6. Hi fred —
    I agree that educational circumstance and moral upbringing have more to do with raising “right kids” than some kind of prenatal intervention where genetic codes are searched for the mystery of future being, but as long as variables can be quantified and tendencies made into facts — we’ll have those who wish to grant us a great Nirvana on the earth by removing all the “undesirables” from the gene pool.

  7. Hi fred —
    I agree that educational circumstance and moral upbringing have more to do with raising “right kids” than some kind of prenatal intervention where genetic codes are searched for the mystery of future being, but as long as variables can be quantified and tendencies made into facts — we’ll have those who wish to grant us a great Nirvana on the earth by removing all the “undesirables” from the gene pool.

  8. You comment is provocative on many levels, Dave, and I’m not sure where or how to start answering you except to say that, across cultures, isn’t there a “universal morality” that is respected and enforced across all people?
    It is those who violate that universal morality who would be removed in the rotted womb. Here are two quick examples:
    1. Killing for selfish interests and not in the service of a higher calling that benefits all of society.
    2. Stealing from the poor.
    If we accept those two examples and indices of “genetic badness” then wouldn’t be all be better served if the “trended violators” were removed before they began
    Then the 9/11 bombers and Americans sent to Iraq (to not fight them in Afghanistan) are both serving the greater good of their society in their deeds — but if any of them, on either side, killed their neighbor or stole from the local mission, they would be prime examples of those who should not be here.

  9. You comment is provocative on many levels, Dave, and I’m not sure where or how to start answering you except to say that, across cultures, isn’t there a “universal morality” that is respected and enforced across all people?
    It is those who violate that universal morality who would be removed in the rotted womb. Here are two quick examples:
    1. Killing for selfish interests and not in the service of a higher calling that benefits all of society.
    2. Stealing from the poor.
    If we accept those two examples and indices of “genetic badness” then wouldn’t be all be better served if the “trended violators” were removed before they began
    Then the 9/11 bombers and Americans sent to Iraq (to not fight them in Afghanistan) are both serving the greater good of their society in their deeds — but if any of them, on either side, killed their neighbor or stole from the local mission, they would be prime examples of those who should not be here.

  10. “1. Killing for selfish interests and not in the service of a higher calling that benefits all of society.
    2. Stealing from the poor.”
    Isn’t the removal of “genetic badness” a form of killing or not permitting one to exist based on selfish interests?
    Doesn’t that steal the rights and dignity of the poor?
    Doesn’t society already steal from the poor with long hours which take parents way from children at low paying jobs which make it difficult for them to sustain their own?

  11. “1. Killing for selfish interests and not in the service of a higher calling that benefits all of society.
    2. Stealing from the poor.”
    Isn’t the removal of “genetic badness” a form of killing or not permitting one to exist based on selfish interests?
    Doesn’t that steal the rights and dignity of the poor?
    Doesn’t society already steal from the poor with long hours which take parents way from children at low paying jobs which make it difficult for them to sustain their own?

  12. Hi A S —
    If I am correctly following your argument and answering your questions, I would say removing the verifiable “bad seeds” before they come into being is a potent part of the basic selfish gene evolutionary process invoked to protect what is yours.
    By removing your future competition for resources so easily by eradicating those who will seek the advantage of the low road to thwart your evolutionary trend is, indeed, in your best interests.

  13. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying – “in your best interests” which means it is selfish and not ” a higher calling that benefits all of society”.
    But isn’t “eradicating” others a form of taking “the low road”?
    There will always be those in the world that are perceived to have less. Greed is an insatiable beast. If everyone not on the Forbes 100 for richest people were eliminated, the people on the bottom third might be perceived as poor and a possible threat to the resources of the top third.

  14. A S —
    Some would argue those who are predestined to spend their lives in prison because of murder sprees or rapes or stealing from churches do not deserve the breath of life.
    As science and technology advance it will likely be easier to eradicate those misbegotten seeds who are destined to do the rest of us harm and so, some would argue, the higher road, the road of the best interest of those in society, is served best by the removal of those genetic threats.

  15. Well, Dave, your suicide bomber is a local hero and my solider is seen as the great Satan.
    Behaviors are hard to quantify cross-culturally and that’s why I was trying to give a couple of examples of “universal morals” that I believe all cultures honor and hold sacred.

  16. Most of the opinion here is that Mr Blair is at least in this particular instance *off his head* has gone too far and has *lost the plot*.
    There have been a whole host of adhoc announcements recently to try to illustrate what he meant ( claiming of course that he never meant to say what he did how he did ) . We are now to have parenting schools, providing educational psychologists to teach new parents how to sing nursery rythmes and tell stories to children as well as s cheme where market traders are going to be teahing maths skills to the 25% or so adults in this country who lack numeracy skills.
    There is hope though this is a report about a memo leaked at the weekend – trouble is I am not sure David Cameron would be any better !
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=423295&in_page_id=1770

  17. I believe how people turn out is a combination of genetics and upbringing and ultimately ones choices.
    But just because upbringing is part of it, I wouldn’t say we should take all children from their biological parents to be raised by “licenced fit parents” until the biological parents can pass a certain test proving they are fit to parent their child.

  18. That’s an idealistic worldview, Dave, but not very real or practicable. If the human beast is flawed and intended to fall, then we have to find ways to deal with the most severe threats to the general welfare of the rest of us.

  19. There are many who would argue with you, A S, that parenthood is not an innate trait and if it ever was it has been lost in the wash of modern convenience and medicine.
    I think all parents should be licensed and vetted and of a certain age of majority before they are allowed to procreate.
    I also think Bloggers should also be suitably licensed.

  20. And what sort of tests would you subject them? By what measure is one quantifiable able to raise children? There are many things that one may encounter. Suppose someone had passed a test but they had a “special needs” child (ie. someone with a rare skin condition that could not allow them to go into sunlight, would the parents need additional courses? And in this time it would take wouldn’t the children not bond with their biological parent the way that they should?

  21. Hi A S —
    What measure is quantifiable to drink alcohol, drive, vote and enter a legal contract?
    I wager creating good children are more important than all of those put together, but we’ve shucked our children so far afield from us and their parents and the family core that they’ve been taken over by television and the streets for their raising.

  22. If behavior is determined by genes, and we have a human genome project designed to unlock the mystery of the genes, then it seems to stand that we will be able to resolve these problems in the near future by inserting a stem cell here and taking another other there.
    And, if we are just chemically driven machines, then my suggestions of adding anti-depressants to the water system — as a basic right for all in society to pursue happiness as guaranteed by the Preamble to the Constitution — might be one way of helping a certain group of people.
    Of course, manic people might need to have other chemicals placed in their water.
    Maybe we’ll have a national HMO that will require us all to show up every three months to get our injections of whatever chemicals are needed to keep us good citizens filled with happiness. 🙂
    Of course, the Taliban might be doing a similar program with all of those poppies they are growing that end up in their final form in the hands of teenagers in the inner cities and the suburbs.

  23. You’re right, Dave, you’re welcome to disagree as much as you like here! I just may not be able to answer all your questions in the way I have framed the argument of the day but that doesn’t mean others here won’t take up your rebuttal instead!

  24. Chris!
    Yes, you’re right that we’re right on the nub of being able to understand and then wipe out the criminal mind, the pre-born guilty child and the murderous adult!
    It will be a fascinating conversation between science and religion to determine the morality of changing the miracle of life before it happens using gene therapy on the parents. I’m sure there are some who will argue that having bad seeds and criminal minds help sharpen the lines between good and bad and the law and lawlessness!
    Criminals also beget heroes; crime solidifies communities against violence and despair. Murder sprees take the national consciousness from other political and economic ills.
    A good car chase and numb the mind and body via television broadcast and create a nation of passive followers who choose the false choice of good over evil.
    You can’t have God without the Devil!

  25. Hi David,
    While some say that you have to have bad to experience good, I’m sure we’d figure out a way to enjoy ourselves for a little while.
    Of couse, I think of all those wealthy Hollywood people who develop all sorts of strange problems when the routine mundane matters are taken care of with their vasts sums of money.
    Could fixing society make things even worse in the future?
    Some argue that criminals today are relatively dumb — otherwise they’d be focusing their energy on positive and constructive projects. If we alter genes and stem cells to weed out the sickly and the weak, could we end up making a cohort of supercriminals?

  26. It is an interesting notion to wonder if society requires badness even if everyone is good. Is there something among us that requires, or even desires killing?
    Is there an element in a shared society that seeks the thrill of lawlessness even in those sworn to upload the very law they are breaking?
    Is it possible to legislate genetics? Are we morally corrupt for even asking permission to try?

  27. One of main thing i learned taking pareidolic photos was reflected perfectly by Alan Watts “In nature there are no aesthetic mistakes.” Also by Andre Gide ” “Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better.” Natural un-altered images show the perefect line that nature makes without mans learnings, neurosis, ego, thought, ideas, shakey hand and miriad other foibles.
    The same goes in spades for man’s ideas of messing with genes to build a master race, get rid of crime, put happy pills in the water, or decide who should breed and who to pay for a license.
    Look to nature and the ant which always knows what to do. Haven’t we made enough of a mess of the world already with our man made ideas applied not for diversion, but with supposed serious intention. Josef Mengele is all that comes to mind.
    i used to think they killed “God” and replaced Her/ It/ Him, with faith backed paper. Now i’m starting to think “God” was replaced with that + the ego of man. “Only God can make a tree.” (Good line from corny but true Kilmer poem), Only “God” can make a man.

  28. Hi fred —
    Richard Dawkins would likely answer your ant inquiry with a question: “Why don’t animals have wheels?”
    He’d then explain they don’t have wheels because wheels on an animal are biologically difficult to implement and sustain because the power and the motion would sort of tangle everything up inside the part of you that connects to the wheel. Wheels for animals are inefficient.
    A wheel is designed to slow down a horse, not speed it up. Wheels on animals do not make evolutionary sense, but they do make sense for humans because invention is the mother of evolution and we can move ourselves and our things faster with wheels than without.
    Then Dawkins would finish you off by stating the real question that should be asked is not about wheels, but rather this: “Why don’t animals have roads?”
    Roads better address the heart of speed and adaptation of need and — for animals anyway — roads are dangerous because they do not help protect vital interests that need to hide in the bushes and the streams and the mountains in order to survive.
    Roads for people with wheels, however, means singularity and a predictable purpose; and on that faster path — while simplified and unified — we more easily find each other for our deaths.

  29. David- Have wheels really helped us? Animals do have roads. They are natural and organic and called paths. Human roads are inorganic with the man made foibles i talked about. They necessitate other roads ad infinitum leading to “paved paradise and put up a parking lot” (Joni Mitchell). Yes- our roads have killed 30 times as many Americans since 9-11 as were killed on that day. Wheels for humans might not make evolutionary sense either. Thanks, i’ll check out Dawkins.

  30. Well, fred, that’s the question Dawkin’s poses. What we create to evolve may help us in the short term but have we really been helped in the long view of us by wheels and roads or are they just a necessary part of the progression of us that future generations may not require?
    Wheels have led us to travel beyond our caves and into harsh terrains not meant for people but we tamed those environments to fit us.
    Roads provide access to new places but in very narrow and specific dangerous ways — but to go “off road” causes all sorts of other problems of convenience and perception and safety if you have wheels and not fast legs or hard hooves.
    Wheels are an evolutionary necessary evil for humans because, if we don’t use them to their fullest extent for our selfish benefit, someone else will to feed theirs.

  31. David- i seem to be 180 degrees out of phase with Dawkins atheism, being gnostic myself.
    Maybe i’m nitpicking the words here, but i know “evil” is a man made idea and a poor one at best. “Selfish,” seems like a dualistic Descartian way of looking at things. i don’t separate myself from the environment or others. Dawkins seem to change, one minute our genes extend and interact, ( “extended phenotype”) the next they are selfish and isolated. i like his extended phenotype idea. To look at genes as the center of life and not some spiritual essence with them seems materialistic to me.

  32. Dawkins said what got us walking upright in antiquity was the “selfish gene” but since then we’ve evolved to become more humanistic and in awe of and more aware of each other and we are less selfish as people than we are as our genes.
    He argues condoms, clothes, art, Cubism, music, poetry, etc. are inherently non-selfish endeavors and those are all good things… so we have evolved into higher prescience than just our DNA and gene pool.

  33. Hi Nicola!
    Sorry for not explaining more about Karl Rove. He’s been close to Bush for years and is his in-house political strategist. Bush belovedly calls him “turd blossom” (“sh*t flower” to be more precise in case “turd” is lost in translation).
    Rove is supposedly the “boy genius” that got Bush elected in the first place. His first nationally humiliating defeat just happened in November.
    Rove sort of took a threatening tone with reporters when he was asked before the election about the polls and the president doing so bad and Democrats leading and Rove replied, rather caustically, “There’s the math and then there’s THE MATH!” — which a lot of people took to mean he had ways of getting the results he wanted as he pleased so voting didn’t really matter anyway in the end…
    That Mandelson looks like a real pip!

  34. Yes, these “media manipulators” should be put out of business. They skew hated to one side for spewing on another in order to win political chits. I understand power is desirable and important when you want to get things done, but when you kill the other guy in the process you don’t have the help you need when it’s your turn to be down for the count.

  35. Define ‘bad’
    Once you eliminate the bad then bad is redefined because perfection has not been achieved. Yet who decides perfection? Is it the same as those choosing bad? In many ways the ‘nature vs nurture’ debate here matters little because the action is being taken before the nurture can be provided let alone proved.
    As soon as you start talking about removing people or otherwise altering society then you have to ask where someone might place you on their own list of undesirables. So maybe for selfish reasons these notions should be rejected.
    And let’s not forget those that would push this forward – politicians. Hardly known for angelic truthfulness are they? And are they not responsible for death, poverty and imbalances throughout society?

  36. Hi Mark!
    “Bad” as in “not good” and “wrong” and “law breaking” and “anti-life” and “pro violence.”
    😀
    There are those who would argue it is in our best interests to eradicate the severely physically disabled and the incurable mentally ill and the criminally insane before they become a burden on society.
    We already do that with animals, and we all know our greatest societal advances have come under the tutelage of the Animal Kingdom: A Fin is a Limb is a Wing
    http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature4/
    Our purposeful winnowing down of the gene pool is familiar because we already do that with cattle and chickens and turkey to breed only the best parts of the animals — so, too, will we breed future beings with extreme prejudice in favor of goodness and morality and probably an inclination to follow orders from authority figures without question.
    I’m sure no one would argue against the eradication of cancer or small pox or Parkinson’s on a genetic level — why should murderers, violent criminals and firebugs be any different? They all maim the body and pock the face of humanity with sorrow and death!

  37. Reducing the gene pool isn’t always a great idea…
    Before they become a burden… so when would we have removed Churchill, Spike Milligan, Van Gogh to name but 3 with mental health problems?
    “We already do that with animals .. to breed only the best parts” – no. We breed them to eat them and we choose what we say are the best parts. I think there is a difference there with a human analogy.
    Didn’t Hitler try this eugenics? And where are those that wished to continue the path he took? He wanted the good and got rid of the bad didn’t he?
    And to take your first point “Bad as in not good”
    Good at what? With who? When? And who decides? This is no clear edged issue and we would all draw the lines in different places – and maybe different places on different days.
    The fit and healthy “madman” who might do something is locked away, removed, unborn maybe – yet the obese, smoking but sane alcoholic who decides to burden the health and tax system can live?
    How does that work then?
    How many crimes = bad?
    Is speeding included? All motoring offences? Fraud? “White collar” crime ?
    And eradicating in the pursuit of some nirvana? And who decides when nirvana is reached? When is pure pure enough?

  38. Hi Mark!
    Just to be clear for those who may be reading us internationally — this is a provocative article and comments thread — and so some of us may be arguing points and taking hard positions we may not fully support just to intellectually see where the path leads us in the end of this dialogue.
    That said… I was careful to not include all the disabled and all the mentally ill.
    Right. We breed the best parts of animals so we can eat them. We’d do the same sort of thing with people. We’d breed the best minds and the best personalities into the foetal gene therapy system.
    Yes, Hitler is an interesting case and we discussed that moral conundrum here in “Embryo Eugenics.”
    There are universal bads: Killing for personal enrichment, stealing from the poor, etc. No one would logically defend those two examples as something we want to perpetuate forever in humanity.
    We would have to trend our genetics to never let “those sorts” have reproductive rights and, if they did somehow reproduce, we would selfishly “fix them” in the best interests of all of us in the womb before they can begin to chance a life of terror.
    We’d fix the smokers and the addictive personalities in the next round! Let’s concentrate right now on fixing those who are set to do deadly harm upon us and then we’ll nibble away at the cheats and two-facers and the not-nice!
    I’d say one unprovoked murder is enough to be branded “bad” and one stealing from a church poor box is another “enough bad” to start removing their genetic tendencies from the future gene pool.
    We don’t need nirvana — we just need safer streets and better people who are kinder to each other and who aren’t using their brilliant minds for criminal activity that adversely affects the mortal coil. What we’re doing so far isn’t working very well.

  39. Mark!
    Don’t we all wish to be better? Don’t we school our minds and exercise our bodies to make ourselves more than we are when we were born naked and hungry? Don’t most people yearn for a longer life so they might play with their great-great-great-grandchildren?
    If there were a gene therapy available for you at age five that would cure any attraction to alcohol, would you have wanted it? If your parents or guardians had fed you that cure to keep you on the right sober track from the jump, do you think your life would have been better and less bad in spots?
    If you had a congenital heart problem that could be healed through an infusion of stem cells — wouldn’t you want that extra chance at life? That’s the same technology in play in our purifying gene technology. We wipe out heart disease and criminal intent in the same DNA reconstruction.

  40. I’d rather be me than a Stepford me.
    Two points:
    – hindsight is a wonderful thing
    – define ‘better’: I have mental health problems, my wife has MS but we have 2 fantastic daughters and a relationship that is in it’s 24th year.
    So what am I trading again?

  41. Hey Mark!
    I’m sure you were vaccinated against disease as an infant. Did that make you Stepford?
    If there had been a cure for alcoholism in that vaccine, would that have created a Stepford you?
    Everyone is mentally ill, Mark! Here’s what I said:

    There are those who would argue it is in our best interests to eradicate the severely physically disabled and the incurable mentally ill and the criminally insane before they become a burden on society.

    Only the extreme examples would be removed from the genes stream. We all need a little bit of crazy in us!
    😀

  42. our best interests

    Whose? Those of wider society or of a narrow minded group for which this is first step along a dangerous road?

    to eradicate

    How? Do we let everyone currently living complete their full life?

    the severely physically disabled

    No Christy Brown or Stephen Hawking then….

    before they become a burden on society

    They cost too much? Need somewhere special to live? What’s a burden? Political dissidence could be a burden. Once you use a term it is expanded slowly but inevitably to fit the current political agenda.
    What would the USA be like had they done this 30 years ago? Would it be a better place? No – it would be just as bad but different.
    Back again:

    There are those who would argue

    Debate is good. But care must be taken that the arguments are kept clear, defined and without a political agenda. Politics is a fickle business, human genetics much less so.
    It’s easy for a farmer to grow the perfect potato for McDonalds and anything less than perfect is rejected without thought because demands must be met. Is that the process we want? I would like to think not.

  43. Hey Mark —
    The best interests of the whole society are what matters in the narrow argument debated in this thread. If we believe societies are built to seek advancement in the fastest way and relieving the people from the burden and the chains of criminality, addiction and incurable mental and physical impairment is one way to achieve that end, why not pursue it?
    Everyone who is alive remains alive. We’re being proactive to eradicate these unwanted traits in people the same way we want to eradicate deadly pandemics with infant vaccines before they start.
    There is a risk of removing the Christy Browns and the Stephen Hawkings from the possible future gene pool, but for each of them there are 10,000 others born who are ignored, abused and not celebrated or brilliant and that’s the trade-off.
    If one believes every life, no matter how feeble, is sacred, then one is also required to defend unborn fetuses before abortion, camp out with Terri Schiavo, refuse all attempts at euthanasia anywhere — even in the case of extreme suffering — and one should dedicate their lives to solving world hunger and the AIDS crisis.
    Every policy and every decision has its dark moments and rational minds need to decide if the benefits outweigh the detriments. From reading their work and knowing their lives, I don’t think Brown or Hawking would wish their lives on anyone.
    Everything is fickle but some things should be proactively healed and changed for the better.
    Since you brought up your daughters in your argument, I’ll ask you this question: Would you wish your alcoholism on them?
    If there were a vaccine against their ever taking a drink in order to avoid the established threat of a genetic reliance on becoming an alcoholic, would you provide that vaccine to your daughters?
    Or would you hope to chance on their will and insolubility that they would be able to avoid the addiction you could not?
    If you can end misery proactively for a person who is genetically marked for illness or addiction, don’t you owe it to them to remove the perpetuation of the disease?
    Imagine a Brown or a Hawking in bodies that worked and then think of the even greater goodness they could provide to the world by having their mobility.