CHAPTER -7
Destiny Unfolded; 
Destiny –Is it determined by heredity

Do your genes determine your entire life?
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable the two Jims. James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-old, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist, Thomas Bouched met them in 1979, he found as a Washington Post article put it, both had married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subjects had been math, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day; the similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes. Other studies at the world’s leading  Minnesota  Center  for Twin and Family Research suggest that many of our traits are more than 50% inherited, including obedience to authority, vulnerability to stress, and risk-seeking. Researchers have even suggested that when it comes to issues such as religion and politics, our choices are much more determined by our genes than we think. Many find this disturbing. The idea that unconscious biological forces drive our beliefs and actions, would seem to pose a real threat to our free will. We like to think that we make choices on the basis of our own conscious deliberations. But isn’t all that thinking things over irrelevant if our final decision was already written in our genetic code. And doesn’t the whole edifice of personal responsibility collapse if we accept that my genes made me do it ? To address concerns, we first need to look a bit more closely at what the experience of identical twins (same zygotes) really show. Professor Tim Spector has been studying identical twins at King’s College London for more than 20 years. From the start of his research in the early 1990 s, it became evident to Spector that identical twins were always more similar than brothers or sisters or non-identical twins (separate zygotes). At the time, however, social scientists hated the idea that genes were an important determinant of who we were, particularly in those rather controversial areas like IQ, personality and beliefs. As one of the many scientists who took the gene-centrist view of the universe for granted, Spector wanted to prove them wrong, and to prove that there is nothing that’s not genetic to some extent. Today he looks back on this as part of his overzealous genetic phase. It is perhaps understandable that Spector got caught up in gene mania. The launch in 1990 of the human genome project, which aimed to map the complete sequence of human DNA, came at the beginning of a decade that would mark the high point of optimism about how much our genes could tell us. Daniel Koshland, then editor of the prestigious journal Science, captured the mood when he wrote: “The benefits to science of the genome project are clear. Illnesses such as manic depression, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, and heart diseases are probably all mutagenic and even more difficult to unravel than cystic fibrosis. Yet these diseases are at the root of many current societal problems. Genes would help us uncover the secrets of all kinds of ills, from the psychological to the physical. Ten years later, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were among the guests gathered to celebrate the revelations of the first draft of the human book of life as Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project put it. We try to be cautious on days like this, said the ABC news anchor, but this map marks the beginning of an era of discovery that will affect the lives of every human being, with implications for science, history, business, ethics, religion, and, of course, medicine.
By that time, genes were no longer simply the key to understanding health: they had become the skeleton key for unlocking almost all the mysteries of human existence. For virtually every aspect of life-criminality, fidelity, political persuasion, religious belief-someone would claim to find a gene for it. In 2005 in Hall Country, Georgia, Stephen Mobley tried to avoid execution by claiming that his murder of a dominos pizza store manager was the result of a mutation in the monoamine oxidise A (MAOA) gene. The judge turned down the appeal, saying that the law was not ready to accept such evidence. The basic idea, however, that the low-MAOA gene is a major contributing cause of violence has become widely accepted, and it is now commonly called the warrior gene. In recent years, however, faith in the explanatory power of genes has waned. Today, few scientists believe that there is a simple gene for anything. Almost all inherited features or traits are the products of complex interactions of numerous genes. However, the fact that there is no one genetic trigger has not by itself undermined the claim that many of our deepest character traits, dispositions and even opinions are genetically determined. (This worry is only slightly tempered by what we are learning about epigenetic, which shows how many inherited traits only get switched on in certain environments. The reason this doesn’t remove all fears, is that most of this switching on and off occurs very early in life-either in uterus or in early childhood. What might reduce our alarm, however, is an understanding of what genetic studies really show. The key concept here is of heritability. We are often told that many traits are highly heritable: happiness, for instance, is around 50% heritable. Such figures sound very high. But they do not mean what they appear to mean to the statistically untrained eye. The common mistake people make is to assume that if, for example, autism is 90%heritable, then 90%of autistic people got the condition from their parents. But heritability is not about chance or risk of passing it on, says Spector. It simply means how much of the variation within a given population is down to genes. Crucially, this will be different according to the environment of that population. Spector spells out what this means with something such as IQ, which has a heritability of 70% on average. If you go to the U.S, around Harvard, it’s above 90% why? Because people selected to go there tend to come from middle-class families who have offered their children excellent educational opportunities. Having all been given very similar upbringings, almost all the remaining variation is down to genes. In contrast, if you go to the Detroit suburbs, where deprivation and drug addiction are common, the IQ heritability is close to 0%, because the environment is having such a strong effect. In general, Spector believes, any change in environment has a much greater effect on IQ than genes. As it does on almost every human characteristic. That’s why if you want to predict whether someone believes in God, it’s more useful to know that they live in Texas than what their genes are .Statistical illiteracy is not the only reason why the importance of environmental factors is so often drowned out. We tend to be mesmerized by the similarities between identical twins and notice the differences much less. When you look at twins, says Spector, the one thing that always seems to come out are the subconscious tricks, mannerisms, postures, the way they laugh. They sit the same, cross their legs the same, pick up cups of coffee the same, even if they hate each other or they’ve been separated all their lives. It’s as though we cannot help thinking that such things reflect deeper similarities even though they are actually the most superficial features to compare. If you can stop yourself staring at the similarities between twins, literally and metaphorically, and listen properly to their stories, you can see how their differences are at least as telling as their similarities. Far from proving that our genes determine our lives, these stories show just the opposite.
When Ann and Judy from Powys, mid-Wales were born in the 1940s, they were the last thing their working-class family with five children needed. So, identical or not, Ann and Judy were packed off to live with different aunts. After three months, Judy returned to her biological mother, as her aunt could not manage raising another child. But for the childless 50 year-old couple who took on Ann (without ever formally adopting her), the late opportunity for parenthood was a blessing and she stayed. Ann and Judy, who are now well into retirement, told their story in Ann’s home in Crick Well on the edge of the Brecon Beacons, over coffee and home-made welsh cakes. Their experience is a valuable corrective for those who have been impressed by tales of how identical twins show that we are basically nothing but the products of our genes. Although the girls grew up in the same town, they ended up living in different areas and went to different schools. The two households in which Ann and Judy grew up were very different. Judy’s father drove trains inside the steelworks, and her mother, like most women at the time, did not have a job. The family lived in a basic two-up, two down house with a toilet at the bottom of the garden. Judy’s four elder brothers were all out working by the time she was five and she was left with her elder sister Yvonne. Ann was brought up in a newly built, semi-detached house, with a toilet indoors. Her father was also a manual labourer in the steelworks, but they were relatively well off, partly because they hadn’t children but also because they were very careful with money. Ann recalled that the sugar bowl was never filled so as not to encourage people to take too much. Where Judy told that- she was a street kid, always out, Ann said- she always had her nose in a book because she was on her own. And while Ann passed the 11-plus exam and got into the grammar school, Judy didn’t and ended up at the secondary modern. Although, aged 15, Judy was offered a place at a grammar school, when she got there she found herself suddenly studying algebra and geometry in a class where everyone else had already been doing it for three years.  Unsurprisingly she struggled. After four months, Judy quit and went to work in a furniture shop. Ann, meanwhile, breezed through school, although she, too, left early because her now 66-years-old-father was retiring. I just felt that it wasn’t fair for me to stay on at school when they were on a pension, she said. At 16, Ann began her white-collar job in the local council offices, not long after Judy had started working on the shop floor.
Although the twin’s paths had diverged up to this point, the next stage in the story is the moment where their stories converge in an uncanny way. Less than six months into her job, Ann got pregnant and quit. Two months later, Judy also got pregnant and quit the nursing course she was enrolled in. Not only that, but both fathers, turned out to be very violent. However, the differences in what happened next are instructive. Ann didn’t stay married for long. I left and went back home, and they were very supportive when they found out what was going on. Judy in contrast stayed with her husband for 17 years. I did leave him, mind, but I kept going back I didn’t have the support, I had three children by the time I was 21. Her mother was no help, my mother’s attitude was, you made your bed, you lie on it, Judy explained. Ann understands Judy’s acquiescence perfectly, imagine being at home, with three children, no qualifications, nothing on the horizon to see your life was going to get better, which I did have. The two only really started a proper sibling relationship after Ann read about the Minnesota University research in the paper and wrote to the university about her and sister, when they were 48; they traveled together to Minnesota to meet scientists there. Now the twins are both retired. Judy says, I think from where we started we’ve traveled the same distance.
But there were important differences in how their lives went, and so too in the people they became. Most obviously, Ann has always had more money, but you can also see the effects of their different backgrounds on their health. Judy had a hysterectomy, I haven’t says Ann. Judy has got a problem with her kidneys I didn’t, Judy has got blood pressure, I haven’t but she’s stronger than me. They are also different in how they think and behave socially. Although their political views are very similar, Judy says- I’m a Christian, well, probably agnostic, I think, whereas Ann is a confirmed atheist. Ann also thinks she’s much more diplomatic. Judy is just rude. That’s probably the educational background coming through. Interfering is too strong a word, but Judy is more involved with her children and grandchildren in an advisory capacity, whereas Ann wouldn’t do that, much of this, they agree, is surely down to culture, with Ann being encouraged to adopt more genteel middle class ways.  Ann and Judy’s story illustrates that our genes only set down what might be described as a field of possibilities. These set limits on what we are to become-so whatever our upbringings, most of us will tend towards introversion or extroversion, jollity or sobriety, facility with words or numbers. But this is far from the claim, that we become what is essentially written in our genes. Rather, various options are penciled in, and our life experiences determine which get inked.
Tim Spectres view that environment is almost always more influential than genes is clear in the case of Ann and Judy, the sisters shared the same genes but with a middle class background Ann did better at school, earned more money and has enjoyed better health. Too much attention to genes blinds us to the obvious truth that access to financial and educational resources remains the most important determinant of how we fare in life. Although being more middle class might improve your odds of success in life, other non genetic factors play a huge role. Take the war babies Margaret and Eileen from Preston, Lancashire; another set of identical twins who were brought up in different families. Margaret’s adoptive parents owned their own house. Eileen’s toilet was at the bottom of the garden. And yet it was Margaret who flunked her 11-plus simply out of nerves, while Eileen cleared hers. Margaret’s adoptive mother was hard, and when her daughter passed her 11 plus on the second attempt she said she couldn’t go to the grammar school anyway because she had already bought the uniform for the other school. As Margaret says to Eileen now- your mom told you, you were loved and you had to be adopted, my mom never said that. I remember waking up when I was eight years old and thinking, somebody had me and they did not want me. It’s horrifying, really traumatic for an eight year old. Eileen agrees that she came out better when it came to love and affection. My mother always said Ellen (the twins birth mother) was very good to give me to her. She always pointed that out, and they picked me because they wanted me. I was secure despite the fact that I had to go and live in this tatty bungalow. Another difference in how their lives have progressed has been their choice of husbands. You have been further afield than I have, says Eileen to Margaret, and adding, I think she’s more or less finished her bucket list. My husband won’t go he is not interested in travel I’ve had to drag him out of the country.
Identical twins show us that in the nature versus-nurture debate, there is no winner, and both have their role to play in shaping who we are. But although we have reason to doubt that our genes determine our lives in some absolute way, this does not solve a bigger worry about whether or not we have free will. Who we are appears to be a product of both nature and nurture, in whatever proportion they contribute, and nothing else. You are shaped by forces beyond yourself and don’t choose what you become. And so when you go on to make the choices in life that really matter, you do so  on the basis of beliefs, values and dispositions that you did not choose.
Although this may appear troubling, it is hard to see how it could be any other way. For example, say you support a more re distributive tax system, because you think that is fair. Where did that sense of fairness come from? You may well have thought it through and come to a conclusion. But what did you bring to that process? A combination of abilities and dispositions that you were born with, and information and thinking skills that you acquired. In other words, a combination of hereditary factors and environment. There is no third place for anything else to come from. You are not responsible for how you emerged from the womb, nor for the world you found yourself in. Once you became old enough and sufficiently self aware to think for yourself, the key determinants in your personality and outlook were already set. Yes, your views might be changed later in life by powerful experiences or persuasive books. But again you do not choose for these things to change you. The very way we speak about such experiences or persuasive books. But again you do not choose for these things to change you. The very way we speak about such experiences suggest this. This book changed my life we say, not I changed my life with this book, acknowledging that having read it, we did not choose to be different, we simply could never be the same again.
The literature on free will tends to focus on moments of choice; was I free at that point to do other than what I did? When we ask this, it often seems to us that only one option was viable. Sometimes this is because we think circumstances constrain us. But perhaps a more fundamental reason why at the moment of choice we cannot do otherwise is that we cannot be other than who we are. The nature of the chooser is the key determinant at the moment of choice,which comes first and what we do follows. To be considered truly free, then, it would seem to be necessary for us to be in some sense responsible for being the people we are, and that responsibility needs to go all the way down: it has to be up to you and you alone what values and beliefs you hold dear and act upon. If we are not responsible for who we are, how can we be held responsible for what we do? But when we consider the dual roles of nature and nurture, the values we hold and beliefs we assert do not appear to be a matter of choice. We are formed by forces ultimately beyond our control. This thought, once made explicit, leads many to the conclusion that free will and responsibility are impossible. If you dig deep enough into what made us who we are, eventually you come across some key formative factors that we did not control. And if they are beyond our control, how can we be responsible for them?
Our genes shape us through the characteristics we inherit from our ancestors. Yet we are not the slaves of our genes. We all have free will that enables us to go beyond our genetic trajectory. By nourishing the inherited characteristics favorable for our growth and neglecting the unfavorable inherited characteristics, we channelize the power of heredity in our personal development. Common statements like -destiny is against me or my destiny is rotten suggest that destiny is some incomprehensible force. However, our destiny is the product of our own past deeds; it is the accumulated stockpile of our past karmic reactions that unfolds itself under divine supervision, as the Bhagavad-Gita indicates. Thus, our destiny is what we have inherited from ourselves, from our actions in this as well as previous lives. In one sense, destiny includes heredity; for destiny determines the parents we get. But in this analysis, destiny refers to those events that happen to us during the enormously liberating in two ways. Firstly, it frees us to unleash the power of our own volition just as we have created our past destiny by our past choices, we can create our past destiny by our past choice, we can create our future destiny by our present choices, secondly, it frees us to see beyond the indifferent or even malevolent seeming workings of worldly events to the benevolent hand of god. He is expertly orchestrating the unfolding of our destiny so as to facilitate our spiritual evolution. All that we need to do is keep ourselves attuned to his will through scriptural study and God centered meditation and participate in his plan for our evolution.
Divinity is beyond our bodies and minds. We are our core spiritual beings. The Bhagavad -Gita indicates that we are all parts of God. We are all potentially divine-not that we are God, but we are godly for that we are all parts of God. We are all potentially divine-not that we are God, but we are godly in our essence. Just as God is the greatest power in all of creation, so is his inheritance to us the most potent of all our inheritances. The spiritual core we inherit from him is inviolable, no matter what happens to us and no matter even what we do. The Bhagavad-Gita is emphatic that nothing absolutely nothing can destroy the eternal soul. We repress our divine potentiality when we live separate from God and let our material infatuations cover our spiritual awareness. But we can express our divine potentiality by choosing to live in honor of our divine, nature, by subordinating and harmonizing our material obligations with our spiritual opportunities. This realignment of our priorities becomes easier when we let Gods supreme power to empower us, by investing adequate time. Thought and energy in developing our devotional connection with God, we discover that we can be far better than what we had ever thought we could be. We can become instruments for divine compassion, channels by which Gods supreme power acts on the earth for our and every ones; well being. When we relish God’s unlimited love by choosing to make him our first love, then our love for others becomes purified and sublimated; we love them not just for what they do for us, but for who they are, as human beings, as souls, as precious parts of God. We become inspired to use our talents and resources to their complete extent not for our egoistic aggrandizement but as expressions of love, love for God and for all his children, that is the fullest and the best way to live.
Genetics, epigenetic and destiny;-
Bruce Lipton, scientist, researcher, teacher, and author, is driven by a passion to bring scientific evidence directly to the people. His information could best assist: everyone. His journey of discovery began as a cell biologist cloning stem cells to understand their control mechanism. This research was undertaken while teaching cell anatomy to medical school students at the University of Wisconsin. Further research conducted at Stanford’s School of Medicine revealed that genes were turned on and off, not by the genes themselves, but through external, environmental stimuli. These radical findings ran contrary to the long-held assumptions of genetic determinism and became one of the early heralds of an emerging scientific understanding called epigenetic. Scientific theorems are slow to evolve and these new concepts have not yet been fully integrated into the mainstream of academia, partly due to the fact that the training of health professionals is deeply vested by the pharmaceutical industry and the even greater promise of lucrative gene therapies. Thus, valuable knowledge that reinforces our innate ability to impact gene expression has not found its way into contemporary medical textbooks or clinical practice. To make this evidence accessible to everyone, Dr. Lipton made the difficult decision to leave his financial and professional security and take the road less traveled. He trusted that bringing such knowledge directly to non-scientific audiences could greatly impact people’s lives, just as it had transformed his own. Dr. Lipton was asked to share his insights into how the science of epigenetic is an empowering model for life and creating our own destinies. Here under given are some of his epigenetic insights
1---When DNA was found to be the hereditary material in the mid-20th century, the belief system of that time was that our genes were like blueprints and that those blueprints self regulate and lead to the assembly and function of the human being. This is the model of genetic determinism or control by genes; and it has been thought for the last 100 years that life was controlled by genetics. Epigenetic is a new model of gene expression; epi means above, so the literal translation of epigenetic control reads, “controlled above the genes.”
2--- The differences between these two are significant because this fundamental belief called genetic determinism literally means that our lives, which are defined as our physical, physiological and emotional behavioral traits, are controlled by the genetic code. This kind of belief system provides a visual picture of people being victims; if the genes control our life function then our lives are being controlled by things outside of our ability to change them. This leads to victimization that the illnesses and diseases that run in families are propagated through the passing of genes associated with those attributes. Laboratory evidence shows this is not true. When we buy into being a victim, we automatically buy into needing a rescuer, meaning we accept that somebody else is going to save us from ourselves. This is the unfortunate situation where the medical community has inserted itself. Also, even though the genetic determinism belief system has been revised over the past fifteen years, the problem is that the revisions are being recognized only at the level of the biomedical research scientists; these ideas are not making their way to the public. In the meantime, the mass media continues to portray that one gene controls this and second gene controls that. The medical industry wants to sell genes , they want to sell gene cards: ‘buy a gene card and read your future, ‘when in actuality, that technology has no more scientific value, maybe even less value, than going to a palm reader or an astrologer. In fact, advanced, ancient systems of astrology are probably more accurate than gene reading cards. But, epigenetic control reveals that environmental information alters the read out of the genes without changing the underlying DNA sequence code. That is the difference; from a single gene, epigenetic regulation can provide for 30 thousand different variations of expression.
3--- Scientists undertook the genome project, thinking they were going to discover 150,000 genes because their model was based on genetic determinism that each gene controlled a character of the human. Since proteins build our physical and behavioral traits and there were over 150,000 known proteins, they expected to find 150,000 genes: one gene for each protein was their model.Instead, they found only 23,000 genes. Since then, we have come to understand that each gene can produce over 30,000 variations, to understand the potential variations of genetic expression you could multiply each gene by 30,000 possibilities. Here a simple analogy; decades ago,television stations used to broadcast a circular test pattern after regular programming had ended for the day. Let’s say that our genes are like that test pattern that is being broadcast. The model of epigenetic, then, allows for control through all the dials and buttons on the television set. I can turn the television on and off. I can raise volume. I can change the color, the tint, the contrast, the horizontal, the vertical. I can change every one of those, yet in doing so, I did not change the original broadcast. No, I only changed the readout of the broadcast, and those variations are potentially unlimited. The distinction between what is controlled by our genes and epigenetic selection is defined early in human development. Human development is divided into two phases- the first is the embryo phase, followed by the fetal phase. The fetal phase recognize when the embryo acquire human characteristics and looks like a human, it is then called a fetus. The embryological stage extends from the single fertilized egg cell through all the early little morphing and shape changes until it reaches the fetal stage. Our genes are the fundamental programmers that take the fertilized egg to the stage when the developing cells begin to look like a human. By then, the gene program has laid out the human body plan with two arms, two legs and nose, eyes ,etc. From the fetal stage on, the modifications are now epigenetically controlled, meaning, they are influenced by the environment. For example, once the human form is made then development could become anything from big strong muscles and arms for fighting to a bigger brain for thinking. Those decisions are made from the environmental information at the time that the foetus is developing. Sperm and eggs are generic. They form a human but they don’t determine if that human is going to be born in Bosnia or Zimbabwe or India. Each of those environments requires a different physiology to survive in. For instance, if survival is threatened, then the physiology of the body changes to create a body that will withstand that threat. Information from the environment is very critical in shaping the expression of the genes that have already directed the construction of the human body.
4- -- The brain is a transducer device; it reads environmental signals, interprets the signals and then regulates the body’s chemistry that controls the genetic expression of the cells. Interpretation by the mind is critical because the brain reads environmental images but has no opinion as to what those images mean. The mind interprets the environmental signals based upon our learning experiences, for examples, if as children we learned that x is threatening, then whenever x comes into our environment, the minds interpretation will stimulate the brain to release  neuro chemicals that control  cell behavior and gene activity to coordinate a protection response. Firstly, the new knowledge of how perception controls biology reveals that we are active participants in controlling the character of our health and behavior. Our ability to consciously control our perceptions and environment has a profound influence on our lives, versus the old belief system where we are victims of forces outside our control. Secondly, when we live in the here and now, present all the time, and actively exercise our consciousness to run the show, we create the life we want. It becomes heaven on earth.
5--- When a chemical signal is sent to a cell, it must first bind with a receptor molecule on the cell. The coupling of chemicals is always associated with heat of reaction, meaning heat is given off by the chemical bonding reaction. Heat is disorganized or wasted energy. When a chemical is used as a signal, 98 % or more of the chemicals available energy is wasted is heat of reaction. On the other hand, electromagnetic vibration energy can also be used to convey information to the cell. Vibration or frequency signals are one hundred times more efficient than chemical signals because they do not give off heat when bonding with a cells receptor. Energy signals are ultra efficient; single photon of light can hit a receptor molecule in the cell membranes and cause the cell to respond. Cells process both chemical and energetic information. Survival is based upon an organism’s ability to respond to environmental signals. This is the physical foundation for the emerging field of energy medicine. Signal receiving molecule (receptors) in the cell membranes act as an information processor. They are programmable and can read and write information the same way that a computer reads and edits files. The cells behavior and gene activity can be reprogrammed as fast as one can type on the keyboard. Is spontaneous healing, the result of an in the moment reprogramming of the cells? Absolutely, the cells can reprogram virtually instantaneously. In the culture experiments, some of the changes can start to occur in half a second (500 millisecond). If I put 1000 cells in a culture dish and expose them to a broadcast energy signal, 1000 cells will respond instantaneously. However, if we expose them to a chemical signal, it will take longer for the chemical to reach and bind to the cells, creating a lag phase between the stimulus and the response. Is there standard acceptance in the medical profession that our cells respond more efficiently to energy frequency than to chemistry?
Yes it is so as there is a common parallel in regard to today’s world energy crisis. For instance, there are other ways of creating energy that are more efficient and effective than burning fossil fuels. The fact is that it is not in the interest of the fossil fuel industry to recommend other technologies; this is the same situation in the medical industry. Since energy medicine does not serve the financial interests of the chemical selling pharmaceutical industry, conventional medicine has no interest in endorsing energy healing modalities. Standard knowledge means it’s published in the scientific journals. Accepted knowledge, means what scientists are collectively thinking. Unfortunately, what is accepted as conventional thinking and what has been published represent two different fields of awareness. Does energy healing exist? Yes. Are there scientific papers to show that? The answer is again yes. But if you go to the hospital and ask the doctor about energy healing his answer will be no. It’s not encouraged by the pharmaceutical industry whose funding of research and media campaigns reinforce the belief that genes control our lives, making us victims in need of their rescuing. But there is still some hope, the more people become aware and have the knowledge that they have the power to be ultimately responsible for their lives; the easier it will be for all people to become aware. As biologist Rupert Sheldrakes, morphic field theory suggests, the more this information is out in the field, the more it is repeated, the more quickly it will become acceptable. Hope healing. People can change. Change is possible. It’s so beautiful, so utterly simple and genius-it’s good.




=========================================================