Crystal Clear

For quite some time, the Western world has had a free market economy and ideology. This was to be the best way to encourage innovation and efficiency and would provide growth and wealth. It was also supposed to even take care of those at the bottom by having money ‘trickle down’ to them. Countries put varying controls on the ‘invisible hand’ depending on their ’socialist’ leanings. The ultimate goal: this would provide food and meaning and happiness for everyone.

And the Christian church said little in the words of critique. There was no consistent reminder that there is sin in the world and that it would always work to mess things up; and that ‘invisible hand’ is not the hand of God.

We have not eliminated poverty. The gap between rich and poor is growing, and is staggering in its disparity. We are polluting our environment and affecting our health. There is still widespread oppression of other people.

It seems the Western world is now being invited to embrace a new type of ‘economics’. One where the environment, nature, is our necessary ally. If we are able to work within the constraints of the laws of the world, that ‘harmony’ will eventually help us to live in peace with others, working towards a common goal of justice and life and happiness for all.

Same refrain. What’s going to happen? It is not going to be successful. There is still sin in the world and it will still be working to mess this up.

The church need to hold up the good things of this new ideology: care for the earth, restraint of greed and short term thinking and others.

And it also needs to critique the missteps. Humanity will not be able to continue to work good for humanity and there will be discontent. Justice needs to be defined in God’s terms. Disagreements between different religions does not get solved by being tolerant.

There are more goods and more missteps. The church needs to work to identify and grapple with them.

Comments(1)

I went to see David Suzuki when he stopped in Hamilton on his If YOU were Prime Minister tour. The saddest part was when he said the tour is bittersweet. He feels like there is good traction on environmental issues (especially global warming) in Canada right now, and he is excited about it, but also that there was a similar feeling in 1988 which did not amount to any change. Had we made changes then, we would be so much further along.

What was most interesting was how Dr. Suzuki talked about economics and ecology. He said that for too long environmental issues have been trumped by economics (I agree, the short term economy has been the trump card). He called instead for economics to remember the ‘eco’ in its name. He wants every decision to be made with an understanding of the full environmental impact. He sees that by doing this we will begin to live within the constraints of the natural world. He sees a brighter future where we think about other people and the animals, the environment and the long term future, as we live on the earth.

As a Christian, I see this as simply replacing one humanistic ideology (economics) with another (ecology) where in both humans are able to fix the problems of the world. My belief is that neither gets to the root of the problems. Problems like massive wealth disparity and poverty, environmental degradation, wars and unrest, killing and hate. These will not get solved by sound environmental policies and actions just as they were not solved by a robust economy.

The Christian church has not done a good job of critiquing the prevailing economic ideology. Theologians and lay people need now to reflect on this new ecological ideology, without getting stuck at the evolution flashpoint, and to speak of the real reason for the discord and suffering. And then, the church can offer a new hope.

Comments(0)

I found the clearest collection of incomprehensible (to me) arguments I’ve heard against global warming in a Slashdot post. Hit the nail on the head!

Comments(0)

I hope the news that a new, cheap drug has been found to treat cancer is true and that it works in practise.

I find the mechanism for the drug fascinating. It reminds me of studying in detail the chemistry of how blood clots when we have a cut. It is incredible!

It seems that cancer cells grow too fast and they can’t get enough oxygen through the normal way of obtaining it (mitochondria). Cancer cells seem to be able to turn off the mitochondria and use glycolysis instead to feed themselves enough oxygen.

Mitochondria apparently also have the job of regulating abnormal cells by telling them to self-destruct when they go bad (apoptosis). But if the mithochondria are turned off, the cancer cells have no safety switch either.

This old drug used in a new way, called dichloroacetate (DCA), apparently reawakens the mitochondria. The mitchondria then notice the abnormal behaviour and ‘order’ the cell to die. Tumors supposedly then wither.

I am just amazed at how the body works and is inter-connected. And how a small thing makes such a big difference. I hope that clinical trials bear this out and that this truly is a breakthrough.

Interestingly, the fact that cancer cells use glycolysis also helps to explain how secondary cancers can form:

“Glycolysis generates lactic acid, which can break down the collagen matrix holding cells together. This means abnormal cells can be released and float to other parts of the body, where they seed new tumours.”

This whets my appetite to learn more in depth how the body works.

For more information from those doing the research, please visit the University of Alberta’s site.

Comments(0)

I like books that are balanced. A book is often trying to convince you of an idea. Writers which include nothing that would go against their point seem to try to hard, and their argument comes across less forceful. I have more respect for a writer and their argument if they discuss difficulties with their point of view. Very few topics are simple enough that everything points only to one conclusion.

In “The Way We Eat” by Peter Singer, the authors discuss factory farming, or intensive animal production for much of the book. They can see very little good or beneficial outcomes from it. Yet, they do not find that “organic” raised meat is necessarily any better for its treatment of animals.

They also question blanket purchasing, like eating local. They work out that to eat a locally grown tomato in the northern US in the winter takes more energy to heat the greenhouse than to ship tomatoes grown in warmer places like Mexico. I hadn’t thought about that before, and so I see that it is more complex than making a purchasing decision based on one or two factors.

One family profiled in the book said something that stuck with me, that the United States (and Canada) is a Corporate Democracy. We vote as consumers to make changes within corporations. That’s how change happens. I think this is a sad, but true caricature of the current ‘economy’.

It is a very good book. I’m going to have a hard time buying meat without reservation. Right now, I can’t buy chicken. I hope to find a local place which sells birds that have been allowed to be chickens – pecking, walking around, socializing with other birds. Not that pigs in crates with no bedding and no opportunity to root are any better.

And yet I always have this problem: I think it is unethical to eat meat that has been factory farmed. So, I will look for suppliers who do not do this (and pay more). My ultimate goal would be to no longer have any factory farmed meat. Can it be done? Do we have enough space, time, etc. to change the system of meat delivery?

Or does everyong have to eat a lot less meat?

Comments(3)