A Touching Scene

Last night I witnessed a touching scene at our local hospital gift shop. A young woman brought an elderly patient in in a wheelchair. The young woman may have been a paid worker or she may have been a granddaughter or she may have been a volunteer. The elderly woman may have been an Alzheimer's patient or she may have been suffering a severe depression. What was moving was the way the young woman spoke softly but without condescension, gently took objects from the shelves and showed them to the lady in the wheelchair. The woman felt the fur of a teddy bear, looked at a tiny baby shirt, smelled a vase of carnations, and "helped" the young woman decide on the purchase of some socks. There was an occasional flicker of interest and a faint smile from the lady in the wheelchair - that seemed to be enough for the young woman; she was not deterred by her companion's rather weak response and continued to cheerfully find things to explore and comment on. Perhaps, I thought, there is nothing terribly remarkable about the scene, but it was pleasing to see such kindness.

What is the law of dreams?

I've just finished reading Peter Behrens' The Law of Dreams for my next book discussion group. It's a wonderfully evocative title, but what does it mean? In the book, there is a line "the law of dreams is to keep moving." That seems to fit the story: this is the story of movement, of journey. The main character Fergus moves from Ireland in the 1840's to America via Liverpool, England. It's also a people's journey from poverty and famine to survival in faraway places. It's also my family story for I have ancestors who came to Canada from Ireland in those lean years. Perhaps that is why this book resonates so powerfully with me.

It's True

There's an old adage "you're not getting older, you're getting better." I've just discovered that it really is true. I just had my eyes tested and was told that my eyesight is better than it was five years ago and that the prescription I've been using is too strong. Apparently this happens with nearsighted people as they get older. I wonder if I can see that blackboard from the back of the room now??? Hmmmmm.......if this keeps up I wonder if I can take a few years off my age?

Everything's Relative

Overnight we've had a snowstorm and it's not over yet with blowing snow expected for the rest of the day. I must remember that there was joy and delight in Baghdad the other day when snow fell there! I will try to think if there is anything positive I can say about the snow - well, er, it's clean looking, it's well, er.... white, it's er....... soft, and well, er........

Carbon Taxes: Coming Soon?

Well, at least now I have a better understanding of the issue after reading the climate change book. The National Roundtable on the Environment issued a report on Monday, January 7th as to how the government should be responding to the GHG emissions issue in Canada. One of the members of the Roundtable was Marc Jaccard, one of the authors of the book Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge so it's not surprising that the Roundtable recommends carbon taxes and cap and trade systems and so on to government. Does this mean we're going to have such taxes soon? NOT!! The government has no intentions of bringing in these taxes anytime soon. And maybe the government is correct. Why?

A number of commentators have pointed out that there is a fatal flaw in the reasoning and recommendations of the roundtable report: none of this will work unless the whole world gets into it together! One commentator calls it sheer lunacy, and to another it's insanity were Canada to act unilaterally. I guess that's the crux of the whole argument, isn't it?

Kyoto Kerfuffle

The second non-fiction book I've read over the past month or so deals with the issue of climate change, specifically relating to the problem in Canada. Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge (2007) by Jeffrey Simpson, Mark Jaccard and Nic Rivers is a very comprehensive look at the whole issue. The book has two parts: the first deals with the science and politics of how we got into the mess we're in and the second part suggests options and solutions for getting out of the mess we're in.

What I found most interesting was a review of the politics over the past two decades! This past year it seemed "Kyoto" became the buzz word, and I, for one, realized I hadn't been paying much attention. Oh sure, I knew Canada had signed a much-ballyhooed agreement, but I thought it was probably one of those pie-in-the sky general goals. But then when I heard environmentalists and others taking up the cry that we must implement measures to meet our Kyoto commitment immediately and the government on the other hand saying that those commitments could not be met, I began to wonder who was right. Was Kyoto a blood sucking socialist scheme to rip off the west or was the government refusal to act a protectionist tactic in cahoots with the oil companies?

Interesting how we agreed to the Kyoto protocol: in the analysis in this book some of the "blame" gets placed on our government (we Canadians!!) trying to stay morally superior to the US - talking the talk grandly abroad but not walking the walk at home. We signed a protocol without any consultation with the provinces or with other stakeholders such as industry and with no plan in place for implementation. In a nutshell, we have agreed to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 6% below 1990 levels in the next four years. If we can't reduce the emissions we can buy credits from a country that has reduced its emissions - for example, Russia has shut down many coal-fired plants due to a slow economy. Do we really want to pay 5 billion dollars to Russia or some other country to buy credits? The authors of this book state that we've 'blown Kyoto' and what we need to do is get on with working out a sensible realistic plan. Reducing our GHG emissions to those levels can even be done but it is going to be a slower process. But we should and must get on with it.

The question is "why?" Why should we do anything in the first place? Is the problem even that bad? The authors point out that we are a large northern country, we transport our goods over long distances, we have a growing population and we need and use fossil fuels for heat, electricity and to support our economy, in other words, our way of life. However, the authors argue, the science in support of global warming affirms that it is not a good thing for Canada. They examine some very compelling reasons why we want less warming, the thinning of the Arctic ice cap and the shrinking glaciers being two of them. One very real menace is an insect, the pine beetle that is destroying the forests of British Columbia. It is spreading eastward and the only thing that will stop it is cold - a good spell of -30 degree Celsius weather on the Prairies is essential, or there goes the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland.

The authors review all the measures that have been suggested, attempted, and indeed, urged: reducing our use of fossil fuels, improving efficiency, conservation measures, switching to other fuels such as solar, wind and even nuclear, and so on. All are good, but in the final analysis, the authors say these measures only go so far. They argue that what is needed are compulsory measures: only policies that put a price on GHG emissions will work. Yes, we're talking carbon taxes, cap and trade systems, regulations that mean new homes and factories will be built to zero-emissions standards, and so on - in other words, aggressive measures that must begin now.

For an excellent review of the material in the book this article should prove helpful.

A Thoughtful Book

I've just finished two non-fiction books that I've been reading off and on for the past few months. Since the topics follow from previous blog posts this is my opportunity to pick up my blog again and perhaps get back to writing (in the interests of posting something for my one or two occasional readers!!).

The first book is a good antidote to Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. It's The Language of God:A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Published in 2006, author Francis Collins has written a sincere and thoughtful book, quite the opposite of Dawkins' ranting and angry statement. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, a very respected scientist in DNA research, came to a belief in God very gradually. I quite agree with Collins that belief in God will never come in the form of proofs; it ultimately rests on faith. And yet, I agree with Collins that it is a rational, plausible and even quite probable choice. What arguments for God are most telling for Collins?

For Collins, one of the most telling factors for belief in God is wonder: all humans seem to have a built-in universal longing for the sacred, something outside of themselves, and humanity (without knowing from whence it comes) seems to have a sense of right and wrong - the moral law. I'm reminded of Immanual Kant's phrase: "two things do incline the heart to wonder - the starry sky above and the moral law within." Humans often experience through an altruistic love agape - the knowledge that something was "meant to be," that we were meant to be there for another person, perhaps a stranger, to assist and help through acts of lovingkindness that expect no return.

Collins quotes from many people I admire, among them Annie Dillard. I love Collins' quote from one of Dillard's essays: "What have we been doing all these centuries but trying to call God back to the mountain, or failing that, trying to raise a peep out of anything that isn't us?" Dillard seems to be saying that the primitive worldview found God or "the holy" in the natural world everywhere; advanced civilizations lose that view but still the search continues - we seem to have a spiritual need, a reflex that is not content to exist in materialism only. What's it all about? We long for "The More". There are many ways to voice this impulse: the Christian might say "my soul is restless until it rests in Thee."

Collins is very much like Dawkins when he writes his scientific material. You can see that both are at home in their fields of expertise, and not only knowledgeable and sure, but passionate and excited about evolutionary biology and genetics. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the science in both books! Unlike Dawkins who goes to great lengths to keep science and religion at arm's length, Collins, not surprisingly, makes many connections between the scientific and spiritual realms. For example, when Collins writes of the beautiful mathematical equations which describe the natural world, he notes that we may even think of this beauty and complexity as "God's language," its elegance a source of the awe and wonder that we so associate with God.

How is evolution dealt with by Collins? Like Dawkins, Collins is definitely an evolutionist and he cautions against those who deny scientific fact in favour of literally using the Bible to date the earth's development in terms of centuries rather than eons. These people not only deny science but make it more difficult for the rational argument for religion to be accepted. And yet, since we don't know how and when the world began there is no reason not to suppose that it was set in motion by a creator God. Logically, the Big Bang requires a creator - physicists can explain everything that happened from the micro second of the Big Bang forward; they cannot explain that extremely tiny instant of beginning. Collins is at pains to explain that having an element of mystery in how the world began is not, of itself, a good reason for belief in God; better reasons are in the unfolding of creation with a seeming sense of purpose and with precision and with the care of an active presence that is very much involved with us.

I liked the Collins book (although perhaps not as much fun as reading Dawkins!). But he is balanced in his approach and seeks a both/and view of science and religion. "Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview provides another way of finding truth." I couldn't agree more.