is this obscene, or what?

A few months back, I commented on the wealth imbalance between different countries. Recently I came across statistics on the ratio of salary of the CEO of companies to the average worker in that company.

The figures show that in 1965, CEO's were paid 24 times what the average worker earned. By 1989, the ratio had risen to 71. The disparity grew even faster in the 1990's, peaking at a massive 300 times in 2000 before a stock market fall reduced the ratio to 143 in 2002. But it is rising again, reaching 262 in 2005.

Thus, CEOs are paid more in one day than their workers earn in a year!

It is hard to believe that anyone can usefully use this much money, and even harder to accept that it reflects true human worth. Communism has been shown to be oppressive and not to work, but surely capitalism is showing itself to be oppressive too, only in a slightly subtler way.

bigger, uglier and emptier?

Houses in Sydney are, on average, getting more expensive. Not because housing costs are greater (they are actually cheaper) but because houses are getting bigger. About a 50% increase in the last twenty years.

At the same time, the average household size has fallen, from about 3 people per household twenty years ago to about 2.5 now (16%). So the average person uses about 60% more space than they did two decades ago.

And some people who have studied these matters are worried:

• If we were satisfied with smaller houses, we wouldn't always need two incomes to pay them off, allowing people more choice in having and raising families.
• Some people are mortgaged to their eyeballs to purchase these large houses, and if interest rates rise (as they have recently), they can no longer meet the requirements, and they lose their house. Loan defaults have risen. In a new suburb near me, one street has four uncompleted houses, presumably because of this.

• Bigger houses and smaller blocks mean very small backyards with nowhere for children to play outside, and people being isolated behind the wall of their "fortresses".
• Bigger houses use more of the world's precious resources, especially energy.
• It's just one more symptom of "affluenza", the disease of excessive materialism that makes no-one happy, and is built upon inequality that keeps so many people in the world in poverty.
  

And another thing. The new big "McMansions" seem to generally be less attractive, as people tend to maximise space at the expense of good design, and (I'm guessing) want their homes to be imposing rather than attractive. At least that's how it looks to my eyes. Here are a few examples.

Houses don't need to be like ugly boxes. They used to know how to build attractive houses.

And they still do.

So we have more space, but less beauty and utility. Affluenza and status extract a heavy price. And, sadly, we are often so desperate to build our self image that we are willing to pay the price. Truly we are sometimes like sheep without a shepherd!

forgiveness and reconciliation can work

Sometimes the news is good!

So often the TV news is full of hatred, murder and war, so it is good to be able to report people giving peace a chance.

The sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland generated a lot of hatred, division and violence. But not all Protestants and Catholics hated each other. Way back in 1965, the Corrymeela Community was formed, with both "sides" of Christianity represented. Among its purposes was to "Work to realise a society whose priorities are justice, mutual respect, the participation of all, concern for the vulnerable and the stranger, stewardship of resources, and care for creation."

Facing the sectarian violence that was rampant at the time, the community specifically aimed "to establish over time a shared society defined by tolerance: a normal civil society in which all individuals are considered as equal, where differences are resolved through dialogue in the public sphere and where all individuals are treated impartially."

The community won an international peace prize for its programs and promotion of reconciliation in 1997. You can read about its current programs here. It is, of course, only one of many groups that have led to the current peace in Northern Ireland.

In August, the British Army ceased "active deployment" in Northern Ireland, although a peacetime garrison remains, a significant development.

Other stories about reconciliation have made news recently.

• A year ago, former South African Police Minister. Adriaan Vlok, visited a church in Soweto to apologise to the Rev Frank Chikane for attempting to murder him during the apartheid regime. Rev Chicane commented: "The fact that Mr Vlok has come to make a confession to me and is here with us today is a miracle". He said that, despite being angry, people should be prepared to "pick ourselves up and move on...... We must not let the past we've defeated dictate our future."
• In April this year, Matthew Cloyd, along with two others, was convicted and sentenced to prison for arson attacks on nine churches in Alabama. One church was Galilee Baptist, a small congregation whose building was burnt to the ground. A replacement building has been completed, and recently Cloyd's family were among those who attended a service to celebrate the new building, in an attempt to reach out to the congregation. "We felt like they deserved to hear from us," Mrs Kim Cloyd said. "We felt like they needed to know that this was not about racism or hatred."In return, the congregation hugged the Coyd family, and visitors reported they were overwhelmed by the sense of forgiveness and love in the congregation towards the family.

Jesus said: "If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." (Matthew 5:23-24) Reconciliation is more important than religious ceremony.

We need more people to live out this teaching, like the brave examples in these stories.

the politics of fear

Terrorism in one form or another has been around for millennia, but modern weaponry makes it so much more fearful. Since the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, the United States has been hypersensitised to terrorism. The attacks a year later on two nightclubs in Bali commonly frequented by holidaying Australians, had a big impact on thinking in Australia. Attacks in London, Madrid and elsewhere have also played their part in making all western countries re-think security.

Sydney has just hosted a meeting of APEC, which resulted in a massive disruption to thousands of workers and businesses, and claims of heavy-handed policing and unnecessarily strict security.

Few of us would think that we can ignore the threat of terrorism, and most would surely support some tightening of laws and some increase in police and security powers. The question is, how much security is necessary, and what is the "correct" balance between security and civil freedoms?

Australian economist, author and thinker, Clive Hamilton, has addressed this question in a recent speech and an essay in the Sydney Morning Herald titled "Fear the creeping powers of the state".

He argues that we have gone too far in creating laws that no-one fully understands, making it easier for people to come to the attention of shadowy surveillance and security organisations without knowing it, and without presenting a security risk in reality. He argues that even if most of us don't know the technicalities of ordinary laws, we all know murder and theft are against the law. But with new anti-terrorism laws, it is hard to know exactly what actions or acquaintanceships or interests might be construed as presenting a security risk.

"The [anti-terrorism] laws are not transparent and are no longer in alignment with our natural sense of what is right and wrong."

He cites the recent case of a Pakistani doctor working in Australia who gave his mobile phone SIM card to a relative, who was an associate of a terrorist in the UK. Government actions to charge him with terrorist offences and then expel him from Australia (by cancelling his visa) were shrouded in secrecy and ambiguity. When facts were finally made public, the Government's case was generally considered inadequate. But it was all done using the new anti-terrorism laws that give the government and police enormous powers.

So are these laws an over-reaction? Those whose family or friends have been victims of terrorism may not think so, but many others are concerned. It is worth considering the following:

• 88 Australians died in the 2002 Bali bombings, with a few also killed in other terrorism attacks. By comparison, about 1600 Australians die each year as a result of road accidents.
• About 2,800 people died in the 2001 World Trade Centre attacks. By comparison, more than 3,700 US troops have been killed in the Iraq war, together with about 300 other coalition troops, about 7,000 Iraqi troops and perhaps 80,000 Iraqi civilians (this number is hotly disputed, with estimates varying from about 15,000 to more than 100,000). Back home, each year about 30,000 people die because of firearms and about 42,000 die on the roads.
• In the UK, 52 people died in the 2005 London bombings, compared to about 170 British deaths in the Iraq war, and about 3,200 Britons killed on the roads each year.

I honestly don't know what to make of these figures, but I can't help feeling our level of concern should somehow be more in proportion to the numbers of deaths. Nor do I know what laws will best preserve our quality of life, but I think we would all do well to consider Clive Hamilton's points.

a tale of 3 watches

One watch has the slogan: "It's your watch that tells most about who you are." And this is who they hope you'll want to be like ...

Another watch suggests your watch determines what you are made of ...

So what does Unkle E's watch tell you about him?

Let's resist advertising and social images that try to sell vanity, and self esteem where it cannot and should not be found!

stuffed or starved?

Photo: Freeimages.

It shocks you at first, then it makes you think. A map of the world with all of the countries distorted - some bulging much larger than they really are, some thin and emaciated.

The map shows who produces the world's food, who consumes it, and who over-consumes. And what it shows is really no surprise. South America (notably Brazil), Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Australia produce much more than they consume. The United States, most of Europe, much of the middle east, South Korea and Japan consume more than they produce. The richer countries generally over-eat, and the poorer countries, notably in Africa, don't have enough.

But what is really shocking is that the food imbalance is so great. Almost a billion people in the world go to bed hungry. But more than a billion are overweight (see the flabby country?).

A new book, Stuffed and Starved:Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World Food System by Raj Patel, reviewed recently in the Sydney Morning Herald, analyses the world's food supply systems and finds them inequitable, unsustainable and manipulated for profit.

We all know that food is not distributed well or evenly, because of inequalities in wealth and suitable land. But this book reveals the large part played by governments and big business, for example:

• High farm subsidies in the US and Europe provide more funds to each cow than a poor family in a developing country can earn. Trade restrictions limit the opportunities for farmers in poorer countries to make a living.
  
• With food seen more as a multi-billion dollar business than a necessity of life, corporations create foods rich in sugars, fats and taste while poor in nutrients, leading to endemic obesity in western countries, poor nutrition in poorer countries, and often economic dependency as farmers in poorer countries move from subsistence farming to cash crops. "Through processed food, consumers are engorged and intoxicated. The agribusiness's food and marketing have contributed to diet-related disease, harming us today and planting a time bomb in the bodies of children around the world. Supermarket shelves offer an abundance of cheap calories, even as they bleed local economies."
• Trans-national companies control 40% of the world food trade, with some foods almost totally controlled by a few companies.
• Several major food companies also own weight-loss enterprises. They "promote products that make customers fatter and thinner simultaneously."

There are good health reasons why we in the west should modify our eating habits, consume less fat (and probably less sugars), eat more good carbohydrates, and avoid highly processed foods with a concoction of artificial additives. Doing our bit to avoid supporting companies which put profit way ahead of health may be another reason.

selfish genes?

It was a nightmare story which attracted enormous public interest.

A couple of months ago, in Melbourne, Australia's second largest city, the morning peak hour was disturbed by a man dragging a young woman towards a taxi. Two men intervened to help the woman, shots were fired and the assailant fled. One man, a husband, father and city solicitor on his way to work, lay dead. The other man, a Dutch backpacker, and the woman, were seriously injured, but survived.

And in the following days people asked: "In the same situation, would you intervene?"

Altruism is an interesting phenomenon, and was discussed in a recent Sydney Morning Herald article. It is a key question in any discussion of ethics.

Photo:Pix

Where do ethics come from, and why should we obey them? And why should we help others if we may endanger ourselves?

There seem to be three main views:

1. Some would say human beings have no ability to choose beyond how our brains are programmed, and therefore, ethics are an illusion. Thus Professor William Provine says: "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. ..... no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; .... and human free will is nonexistent."

If this view is true, then we don't have any real choice about altruism - it is something our brains either do or don't lead us to do. We have evolved to sometimes behave in unselfish ways, if it benefits the species, and the survival of our genes. "Psychiatrist Dr Michael Dudley thinks our selfishness and also our latent altruism might simply get back to biology. He says there are arguments for altruism being beneficial for the species."

But if this view is true, we cannot really criticise another person's behaviour, no matter how extreme - they are behaving as they are programmed to do. It also makes punishment for crime unfair.

2. Others also believe that ethics, and altruism in particular, did evolve as human society evolved, but that we have a genuine choice whether we act selfishly or unselfishly. Thus social researcher Hugh Mackay writes: ".... morality is a social construction. At its core is the idea of mutual obligation .... willingness to take the rights, needs and welfare of others into account, on the assumption that they will do the same for us."

But this then raises some difficult questions. If I have a choice, why should I disadvantage myself for the sake of someone else? Why should I follow society's rules if I think I can get away with it?

And who decides what is right and what is wrong anyway? A common answer, evident in Mackay's comment above, is that society as a whole decides. But are we really willing to accept that? If the majority of Germans supported Hitler (I'm doubtful they actually did, but this is a hypothetical), would that make the Holocaust "right" for them? And presumably wrong for the rest of us? Was slavery right when the majority accepted it?

In the end, most of us believe some things are REALLY right or wrong, but this doesn't fit well with this view of ethics.

3. The third view argues that ethics have a factual basis in the universe and can be true just as the laws of physics are true, with the difference that we have a choice about obeying ethical "laws". This view raises its own set of difficulties. Who or what makes things 'right' in the universe? And if the answer is "God", then which god are we talking about?

Nevertheless, this view is the only one which explains what we generally believe about ethics, that some things really ARE right and wrong.

So altruism isn't a simple thing. It seems to go against nature. Hugh Mackay: "It's actually not natural. The natural thing is to go along with the crowd." Thus altruistic behaviour is, for some, another indication that the naturalistic explanation for ethics isn't correct.

And perhaps altruism is becoming a rarer thing. After the Melbourne shooting, police spokesman Senior Constable Wayne Wilson said: "I have no doubt we're a far more selfish society and far more individually-orientated than we ever used to be. For that reason, people are less willing to intervene in a humanitarian way in other people's lives."

Perhaps ethical behaviour and personal integrity are also becoming less common on an individual level (e.g. truthfulness, faithfulness in marriage, selfishness, greed), even as it appears that we are making progress in improving society in the areas of racism, sexism, pedophilia, abuse and war.

Would you intervene if someone needed assistance?

Read more about where ethics come from, how our brains work, and our responsibility for what our brains decide.

don't drink the water!

Three songs about how white colonial people treated indigenous or black people:

Don't Drink the Water (Dave Matthews Band):

Written as the thoughts of a white colonist in frontier America, as he pushes the native Americans off their land, telling them "There's no place here ... not room for both, just room for me." The song ends with these devastating words:

"'Cause you're all dead now I live with my justice I live with my greedy need I live with no mercy I live with my frenzied feeding I live with my hatred I live with my jealousy I live with the notion That I don't need anyone but me

Don't drink the water There's blood in the water"

Blind Willie McTell (Bob Dylan)

Dylan starts by stating his thesis that America's prosperity is compromised: "Seen the arrow on the doorpost saying, 'This land is condemned, all the way from New Orleans to Jerusalem'" then quickly paints a series of scenes from the days of slavery. He ends with this conclusion:

"Well, God is in his heaven And we all want what's his But power and greed and corruptible seed Seem to be all that there is I'm gazing out the window Of the St. James Hotel And I know no one can sing the blues Like Blind Willie McTell"

Solid Rock (Goanna)

The white settlement in Australia from the viewpoint of indigenous Australians, who, understandably, feel betrayed:

"They were standin' on the shore one day, Saw the white sails in the sun Wasn't long before they felt the sting, white man, white law, white gun Don't tell me that it's justified, 'cause somewhere, someone lied Yeah well someone lied, someone lied, genocide Well someone lied."

Whenever I hear that song, I feel the raw sting of those words: "Someone lied".

Some people want to ignore our history, because they feel it wasn't our fault and only opens up negative thoughts. It wasn't our doing, but we can, and should, feel grief for the people our ancestors treated inhumanly, even if in ignorance.

Of course it is still happening today, as Indonesia invades and subjugates the people of Irian Jaya while the rest of the world finds it more convenient to look the other way.

"Someone lied!"

what sort of human being would you create?

Graphic taken from the Emergence lab website.

I read about an interesting new "show" on the weekend (I put "show" in inverted commas because that might not be the best word - "experiment" might be equally applicable).

It's called Emergence, and it's an "interactive audiovisual performance" coming to the Sydney Opera House this week. In the show, each member of the audience takes on the role of parent and decides on the characteristics of a human being they create, and then watch to see how it works out.

Before each performance. audience members log in to the Emergence lab, and decide on traits for their developing embryo. At the performance, they discuss and then vote on their being's emotions and characteristics, then watch film clips and live theatre, even interacting with their creation, and see the consequences of their choices. It sounds simple, but reports suggest that the outcomes are emotionally engrossing and thought-provoking.

The most interesting thing for me is the types of choices people have tended to make during the show's initial season in Canberra.

• The majority of people would not choose for their creation to always be happy, but would prefer them to be able to feel sadness. However most men would prefer they never could feel pain.
• Only half of people, and even less of females, would like their being to always be honest.
• People would generally prefer their being to be more critical rather than more empathetic, if they have to choose between the two - I find this very surprising.

It may be that, before too long, the choices faced in this show will be faced by real people. I wonder if we have any understanding of the implications of tinkering with the balance of what it means to be human?

Read reviews of Emergence in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Program.

seeing the light

There's no doubt we humans have learnt to do some pretty clever things, but you have to wonder how smart we are.

It has been predicted that the world's reserves of petroleum will run out in about 30 years. Certainly we may discover more, but the rate of discovery is declining while the rate of use is growing, and faster than was predicted. If we don't do something, the next generation will certainly be forced to.

To make matters worse, our dependence on petroleum and other fossil fuel energy (such as coal-fired power stations) is a major cause of global warming.

There are quite a few alternatives to consider. For some people, nuclear power is the saviour, but for others it is the worst of all options. It would be wonderful if we could harness the more benign nuclear fusion, but that is still some way off.

Electric cars may one day take over from petrol vehicles, and geothermal energy may one day be a useful energy source. But many believe our greatest hope is to develop the safe and renewable energy sources - solar, wind, hydroelectric and tidal.

At present, renewables constitute only a small percentage of the world's energy sources, with fossil fuels being dominant at 67%. But the use of renewables, especially solar, is growing fast.

The sun (here shown being eclipsed) is ultimately the source of all our energy
(photo from PDPhoto.org).

Japan, the US and Germany lead the world in the use of solar power. In recent news, Germany is to build solar energy plants to generate almost a third of its needs. This is remarkable, considering that Germany has significantly less hours of sunshine per year than countries closer to the equator. India, Australia and large areas of Africa and South America have the largest number of sunshine hours and hence the greatest potential for solar energy.

Australia is also one of the leading nations in the development of solar technology, has vast areas of high sunshine, yet many believe we have squandered our natural opportunities. Currently renewable sources provide only about 5% of Australia's energy, with solar being only a small part of this. Many people believe we could and should do much more if only Governments would provide the right incentives. Certainly the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that many people are willing to pay more for renewable energy. However Australia has a lot of coal, which earns a lot of export dollars, and the coal industry is a powerful lobby group.

So we may be the "lucky country", but it seems like we have a way to go to be the smart country.

we know more than we can tell

What does riding a bicycle tell us about science and knowledge? (Photo:Webshots)

We live in a world where science and technology rule. So much so that some people seem to think that the only kind of real knowledge is that revealed by science. "Show us the evidence" they say, "We only believe what can be demonstrated." It all sounds very reasonable. It is, in fact, an expression of a philosophy known as positivism: "the only way we can know something is through empirical evidence, that is, observable via our senses."

Michael Polanyi was a scientist and philosopher who lived through much of the twentieth century. He reacted against positivism, and came to the conclusion that "We know more than we can tell".

From his and others' insights have come the ideas of tacit knowledge and the relevance paradox. Tacit knowledge is the information we carry in our heads that cannot be easily explained through logical statements. How to ride a bicycle might be an example - it cannot be learnt from a textbook, but requires experience and practice.

The relevance paradox arises where a group of people miss important information because they did not recognise its relevance. A classic example (according to Wikipedia) was when NASA scientists were trying to develop a knee joint for a spacesuit, and finally found that their problem had been solved centuries before, and the solution could be seen in King Henry's suit of armour in the tower of London.

Why is all this important? I want to suggest three reasons:

1. Tacit knowledge has been found to be important in innovation and research. Despite the scientific method being all about testing the evidence, many top scientists say that their initial ideas came via inspiration, which were then verified by evidence. Sometimes we know more than we can tell.

2. We have been burned many times by the relevance paradox, for example, in ecology. In Australia, foreign plant and animal species have been introduced for some purpose thought good at the time, but almost all have turned out disastrously:

• foxes and rabbits were introduced for sport, but now wreak environmental havoc;
• European Carp and the lantana plant were let loose in the wild and now are in pest proportions;
• cane toads were introduced to control two species of beetle which are pests for cane growers, but have multiplied and spread across vast areas of northern Australia, leading to much destruction of native species
• non-native feral cats are one of the biggest threats to many smaller native animals and birds which have never before had to cope with such voracious and vicious predators.
  

European settlers in Australia didn't understand the environment they were effectively experimenting with - and fell victim to the relevance paradox.

3. I think there is a danger that twenty-first century western culture is falling foul of the relevance paradox and ignoring tacit knowledge in many ways. So much of what we know and do is changing so fast, from ethics to relationships to information and entertainment. It is like we are in the middle of an enormous social experiment and we don't know where we'll end up. Some of the gains are enormous, for example in medicine and communication, but I can't help feeling we may be throwing away some of the intangibles like ethics, courtesy, faith, altruism and common decency a little too fast. We may live to regret it. We know more than we can tell, but not as much as we think we do.

It is interesting to note that sociologists tell us that "modernism", built on the certainties of science has now almost passed, and given way to "postmodernism", which has far fewer certainties. But that's another story.

Read what Wikipedia has to say about Michael Polanyi, tacit knowledge and the relevance paradox.

truth in advertising?

miracles happen?

I guess most of us have seen the bumper stickers ... Some are positive ("miracles happen", "magic happens"), some tell us more negative stuff that we already know.

But can miracles really happen? And how could we be sure?

are there any credible accounts of apparent miracles?

Again, most of us have probably heard them, stories and urban myths that have come to us maybe sixth or seventh hand, so we have no way of assessing their reliability. We'd like to know if the witnesses are reliable; we'd like to know if there's any documentation.

But here are a few accounts which do have documentation and do appear to have reliable witnesses, so they are at least worth considering.

• Recently, American heart surgeon, Dr. Chauncey W. Crandall IV, gave an account of a man he had attended in hospital after he had suffered a massive heart attack. After attempts to re-start his heart had failed, the man was pronounced dead by the medical team. However Dr Crandall prayed for the man's healing, his heartbeat returned and he subsequently recovered. This is not the first time Dr Crandall has observed a miraculous healing after prayer. Dr Crandall is a respected cardiologist (as this summary shows) with over twenty years experience, he has performed heart operations in many hospitals and holds professorships in several universities, so this miracle is very well attested.
• In January 2006, Patsy was admitted to hospital with a virulent form of encephalitis, a virus that attacks the brain. Within a few days she was in a coma, connected to life support, and the prognosis was grim - she was unlikely to survive, and if she did, it was likely her brain would be impaired. More than a thousand friends, relatives and friends of friends were enlisted to pray for her healing, and she started to improve. After a few months, doctors confidently predicted a full recovery. The family attributes her recovery to God's intervention, and her husband has set up a website and billboard to advertise this.
• Many cases of apparently divine healing have been documented by the World Christian Doctors Network. Case studies of cancers, AIDS, multiple schlerosis and many other illnesses that were apparently healed miraculously are presented on the website, and include copies of case notes, scans and medical descriptions. It is hard to challenge such well-documented claims.
• Lourdes is a village in France where many healing miracles are reputed to have occurred since 1858. Of the half million people seeking cures each year, several thousand healing miracles have been reported. Where possible, people claiming healing are examined on the spot by a medical bureau, and the information is reviewed by an international commission of medical specialists. To be regarded as authentic, claims have to satisfy three requirements: (a) the illness was well documented, (b) the symptoms disappeared within hours and (c) the healing lasted for several years. Most claims lack sufficient evidence to be verified, but 63 miracles have passed this stringent checking and have been proclaimed as authentic. (Read more here.)
  
• I have also read a report of a medical investigation into 300 claimed miracles of healing at the Jamkaran mosque in Iran, in which 8 were authenticated, but I cannot find a reference to this now.
  

I find these reports, individually and as a whole, too credible to lightly discard.

but can we seriously believe miracles occur today?

Many people believe that miracle stories are simply not credible - our scientific knowledge has shown them to be impossible. But it seems to me that there are three possible explanations for an alleged miracle:

1. The story is untrue - it was a mistake or a fraud.
2. There is a natural explanation - perhaps coincidence or natural recuperative powers which we at present don't understand.
3. A supernatural (= beyond nature) explanation - God or another supernatural being did it.
   

I cannot believe all the above reports are frauds or mistakes, and I cannot believe they are all coincidences. If you believe the universe is a closed system and nothing exists outside it to interfere, then you cannot believe in a supernatural cause, and there is no obvious explanation for these miracles. But if you believe there could be a god (which is not something science can prove or disprove), then you are able to consider that explanation.

So I don't think it is science which prevents our belief in miracles, but a belief that nothing exists beyond this natural world. I don't think that's a good assumption.

what may we conclude?

Each person will draw their own conclusions about how much all this "proves", but it seems at least we can say that:

• it would be foolish to write off the miraculous too quickly, and
• if we need healing, it would be sensible to ask.

Since I wrote this, I have searched out some other reports on the apparent miracle involving Dr Crandall. Check out these additional reports in a later blog, here.

For more documented accounts of apparent miracles, see Healing miracles and God.

Please let us know you've visited, and tell us what you think, by making a comment using the link below.

it's worse!

Luke Skywalker: "It could be worse." (*Pause*) Han Solo: "It's worse!"

The film Wilberforce has just been released in Australia, so now's a good time to talk about slavery. And the bad news is: "It's worse" - worse than I thought that is.

Consider these facts about the slave trade and trafficking in human beings, from the Stop the Traffik website:

• Trafficking is the fastest growing means by which people are caught in the trap of slavery.
• At least 12.3 million people are victims of forced labour worldwide, 2.4 million as a result of human trafficking. More than three quarters are female and half are children.
• The majority of victims are the poorest people in the poorest countries.
• Human trafficking is the third largest source of income for organised crime, behind armaments and drugs trafficking. It is the fastest growing form of international crime, generating 7 billion dollars per year in criminal proceeds.
• People are trafficked into prostitution, begging, forced labour, military service, domestic service, forced illegal adoption, forced marriage etc.

Doubtless, like me, you are disgusted that 200 years after Wilberforce stopped slave trading into Great Britain, and 150 years after the US Civil War was fought to bring an end to slavery into the USA, all this is still happening.

Fortunately a coalition of social justice groups, clubs, schools, faith groups, businesses and charities in 40 countries is now fighting this problem. And we can all support them:

• Go to the Stop the Traffik website and sign the declaration.
• Buy Fair Trade and Traffik Free chocolate (12,000 children have been trafficked into cocoa farms in Cote d'Ivoire, which supplies half the world's chocolate).
• Write to a politician.
• Donate to one of the member organisations - e.g. Amnesty International, World Vision, Tearfund, etc.
• Tell other people about the problem, and the Stop the Traffik campaign.

I've removed the video that used to be here, but you can still watch it if you want to here.

family-unfriendly politics?

Australia has three levels of government:

• The Australian Government deals with national issues such as taxation, trade and defence.
• The 8 state and territory governments are generally responsible for (among other things) transport, health, education and policing.
• About 700 local government councils are responsible for local services such as roads, urban planning, garbage and stormwater, etc.

This weekend, the Victorian state Premier (more or less equivalent to a state governor in the US), Steve Bracks, announced his surprise resignation from the position, only 8 months after being re-elected for another term. He cited family reasons for this step, and commentators noted a recent serious drink-driving offence by one of his children. Some hinted at other problems in his family.

Bracks seemed to be an efficient and honest politician, the kind we certainly cannot afford to lose. He reportedly worked 90 hours a week in this position. Recently NSW Premier Morris Iemma was criticised for taking two weeks holiday from his position to spend time with his young family.

I can't help feeling we are moving in the wrong direction on this one. Australia has the "Westminster" system of government, in which the parliament (all elected members) makes decisions, but more and more it seems to be the majority party, the Cabinet (the senior members of the majority party who are responsible for directing the public service departments) and, increasingly, the leader, who make the decisions. Our Prime Minister and Premiers, supposedly leaders among equals, are becoming more like presidents. This focuses the power and responsibility too much, and places too much pressure on those individuals. I don't believe we want our political leaders to sacrifice that much. I can't help feeling some of the best people will not be prepared to make the sacrifice, and we'll all suffer.

Read more about the Bracks resignation.

does there have to be a reason for everything?

When I was a boy with a deep interest in astronomy, there were three alternative scientific theories to explain the origin of the universe and why it is expanding. Two of them (Steady State and Pulsating universe) were based on the idea that the universe has always existed, and one of them that it began a definite time ago.

In the years since then, the latter theory, the Big Bang, has become almost universally accepted by scientists, who believe the evidence indicates that the universe, matter, energy, 3-dimensional space and time all began around 15 billion years ago.

This conclusion is based on the fact that the universe is expanding, with the more distant galaxies moving faster, so we can extrapolate backwards to the time when it existed as a single point, or singularity. The big bang also explains a number of other cosmological discoveries, regarding temperature and background radiation, for example.

The big bang was not an explosion in empty space. Rather, the big bang created space - at the moment of the big bang, 3-dimensional space and the entire universe were infinitesimally small, but began to expand rapidly. And we don't know if there was anything before the big bang, because time was also created at the big bang.

Artist's impression of the very early universe (NASA).

If the universe has always existed (as was once believed), we wouldn't need to ponder the cause, because if it didn't have a start, it presumably didn't have a cause. But the big bang almost demands an explanation. Most scientists consider it unlikely that we can ever discover scientifically what caused the big bang, but of course philosophers, theologians, scientists (and nearly everyone else) still wonder.

Did something cause the big bang, and if so, what was it?

There are only a few options ......

1. There was no cause.
2. There was a "natural" cause.
3. There was a non-natural ("supernatural") cause.

The arguments (summarised) go something like this ....

1. The idea there was no cause, or that the universe caused itself, goes against everything we know about things - everything in the universe has a cause outside itself. But we don't have much experience of big bangs (this is the only one we know about) so perhaps it is different to everything else we know and doesn't need a cause.
2. A natural cause is something measurable by science. But if the universe had a natural cause (say another universe that caused our universe to form), we have just pushed the question back another stage, as we then ask what caused that universe or cause. Philosophers and scientists are quite sure that an infinite series of causes cannot occur and doesn't make sense, so this explanation must at some stage end up in either option 1 or option 3.
3. A supernatural cause, such as a god, does not suffer from this difficulty if one believes that god has always existed - like a universe that has always existed, a god that has always existed does not require a cause. Of course if one accepts this explanation, it does not demonstrate which particular god might have created the universe, although many of the gods believed by people would not be capable of such a thing. (For example, the gods of Norse mythology were part of the universe, not creators of it.)

So it it appears to come back to two options - either the universe did not have a cause, it just happened, or it had an eternal, supernatural cause, which might be defined as "god".

Even with all the understanding of modern cosmology, it seems we still come back to the same age-old questions and answers.

• Read more about the big bang, as explained by NASA.
• Read more about what caused the universe, from an atheistic and a theistic viewpoint.
• Read my more detailed summary of these matters, or my discussion of was it all planned?
  

how do you face the end of the world we know?

It's become a truism that the world is more complex than it used to be and things are changing faster than ever before. To some it seems that the world cannot continue as it is, and many people are finding it harder to cope. How do we respond to this?

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, social researcher Richard Eckersley suggests there are three common responses:

1. Nihilism - Some people have abandoned any belief in a social or moral order, and believe that in such a chaotic world, "nothing much matters any more". Some see violence as a "purifying attempt to intervene against the nothingness" - whether the violence is real (suicide or random killing) or imaginary (violent movies). Others respond with determined efforts to be "a winner at all costs" or to "lose themselves in the quest for pleasure and excitement", or to simply "focus on home and hearth".
2. Fundamentalism - Another response is to hold ever more tightly to some simple, and simplifying, beliefs. The certainties of religious faith (whether Christian or Islam, or some other) are seen to fit in here (in the extreme form, some fundamentalists may be happy to bring on apocalypse and the end of the world now, as a prelude to God's new order). However secular fundamentalism is also common, in the form of embracing political or economic certainties.
3. Activism - A third response is to challenge the status quo, attempt to create new values that "will make a sustainable future possible", and hope this will change the world, or at least the individual's world. This may mean taking up a cause such as global poverty or environmental sustainability, but for others, it may simply mean "down-shifting" - putting less emphasis on earning a high income, and more emphasis on family and friends, spirituality, lifestyle and self-fulfilment.

Eckersley sees hope in the latter response. He says social research suggests that the numbers of people responding with positive activism is increasing, and is becoming an unstructured movement, made up of people in social justice. indigenous rights and environmental groups, citizen and community networks, faith-based groups and other institutions.

Fellow researcher Hugh Mackay has written: "the gap between 'what I believe in' and 'how I live' is uncomfortably wide for many of us, and we are looking for ways to narrow it".

I wonder what your response is? (Will you tell us?)

As a follower of the way of Jesus, I believe there is hope, and strangely, I think it lies in a combination of all three responses.

1. I think we need to go part way with the nihilists, and understand that the material world of reductionist science (where only the material and the demonstrable exists) is indeed not worth living for.
2. Jesus was opposed to religious fundamentalism (which he saw expressed in the restrictive rules of the religious authorities of his day), but he nevertheless offered some ennobling certainties which we should embrace.
3. But I agree with Eckersley that we need a creative and active response to the world and the injustices in it. I see some signs of this in new forms of christianity, and in those of the younger generations who refuse to embrace the selfish certainties of the rat race.

I don't have a web reference for Eckersley's essay, but this review of his book covers similar territory.

another t-shirt of our times

maybe, just maybe, we're starting to get this right

The climate change argument has been going on for a while, but, perhaps mostly due to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", there now seems to be a groundswell of opinion that we do indeed face some challenging issues. Let's look briefly at the evidence.

is our climate really changing dangerously?

Large and small temperature changes have occurred throughout human history, and before. But the temperature rises in the last century are way greater than anything before, as these graphs show.

Global temperature for last 1000 years (graph by Australian Greenhouse Office).

Temperature & Carbon Dioxide in Antarctic ice for last 400,000 years
(graph by Australian Greenhouse Office). Current levels (at right of graph)
are higher than anything ever experienced in that period.

These temperature rises have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases, as shown below (don't worry if the fine print is illegible, the timescale is 1000 years and the graphs speak for themselves).

Global increases in 3 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Australian Greenhouse Office)

are people really to blame?

The respected Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has modelled the changes in temperature, and demonstrated that, while there may be some natural causes, human causes predominate. This conclusion is as safe as scientific modelling, which we depend on in so many ways, can be. The major greenhouse gas polluters are USA 23.5%, China 14.6%, EU 11.6%, Russia 6.2% and Japan 5%.

will it make a difference to the world?

For many people, it will, unfortunately.

• Impacts are variable, but the trend will be towards more extreme weather events.
• Some lower-lying areas close to the sea (e.g. parts of Bangladesh) will experience increased and sometimes disastrous, flooding, and some inhabited islands (e.g. Maldives, Tuvalu) will disappear. In many countries, coastal communities will experience more severe storm damage.
  
• In some locations (e.g. Canada, Russia, northern Europe), increased rain and warmer temperatures could lead to increased harvests.
• However in many other areas (e.g. Africa, Australia, western USA), lower rainfall could lead to prolonged droughts and, in some places, possibly even famine.
• Environmental consequences will be severe, from shrinking glaciers to loss of habitat due to drought.
  

are we doing enough to turn things around?

It is clear that globally, we are not yet doing enough, as many governments fear making changes that will make them unpopular with voters. But things are beginning to change.

• Many European countries are moving towards realistic targets.
• Some businesses are thinking much further ahead than governments, and are planning their own responses.
• Public opinion in the US and Australia has begun to turn.

There is still a long way to go, as we all get used to living a little more austerely and responsibly, but maybe, just maybe, we're starting to get this right.

further reading:

Background information from the Australian Greenhouse Office.
CSIRO publications, including this report.
Information on Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth.
The winners and losers of climate change, by Alister Doyle (ABC radio).

western culture summed up in one sentence

A current T-shirt in the shops in Australia. Says it all.

(This is a mock-up of the real thing, until I can get the real thing on here.
Original photo from Webshots, modified by Unkle E.)