Imagine

Because this is November, moments of silence, red poppies and poems will commemorate the armistice agreements of wars past. School children everywhere will discuss themes of peace, decorate wreaths and paper doves, and sing of peace on earth at their assemblies. Crowds of mostly senior citizens will gather at cenotaphs to remember their fallen comrades and to mark the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. The Remembrance Day holiday should cause pause for thought among rational human beings. What about a moment of silence committed to finding a lasting peace in the world? Is anyone even working towards a lasting peace?
By all appearances, it seems not. In the name of the fallen men of the previous two world wars, and the successful armistice agreements that ended them, we must work toward peace. Peace may be hard work, but it is the only hope for our future.
Are all wars fought over religion? Or is religion just the fall guy of these nasty squirmishes in international affairs? Is conflict the eternal human condition, or could an atheist world avoid these conflicts? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter—a decision based largely upon which religion he (or she) places his belief.
John Lennon once said "Imagine there's no countries~ it isn't hard to do~ nothing to kill or die for and no religion too~ Imagine all the people living life in peace." My gut tells me he was right—that religion is behind many of the world's conflicts. At the same time I am well aware that it is not the actual religions, but rather the zealots who are ready to die for their god; ready to sacrifice themselves and others in the name of their religion. Adding further fuel to the fire is the common idea to many religions that if you are not a member of the saved, you must be a member of the sinners. Religions do not have an inherent respect of other religions and respect for others to make their own choices as far as religion is concerned. Would a world of atheists be inherently more peaceful?
Some might argue that money is the cause of most conflicts, and it is difficult to argue the point. If the World Trade Centres were a potent symbol of the cult of money, pictures from Afghanistan present a stark contrast. Perhaps our high standard of living in the face of stark poverty throughout the third world has finally caught up with us. We live in an unbalanced world where North Americans make up 5% of the world's population, yet consume 33% of the planet's resources. A world where debt to the wealthy countries cripples the economies of the poorest nations. Of course, it would not serve others to express their envy of American money, an appeal to religion is a much more noble cause. It is because of this, that religious leaders the world over have a responsibility to teach openness and acceptance to their followers. There are many more ways in which human beings are alike than those in which they are different—it is these similarities that we should be focusing on.
Whether the historians know this war as the war on terror, the war of religions, or the war between economies, there is one thing I know to be true. Religious leaders have the power and influence to teach their believers tolerance of other religions. All religions should be working together to find their common ground and spreading the word that all people are worthy of respect, not just those who share the same beliefs. The human race has bigger issues they could be directing their energies towards—the environment, or the natural resources such as water and oil that are running out come to mind. We will only be able to solve these larger problems if we can put aside our differences and find our commonalities.
Biological weapons, chemical warfare, nuclear capability. All too much to risk without at least trying to sort out our differences. We have no choice but to try to put our differences behind us and work toward a peaceful resolution. "Imagine all the people sharing all the world~you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you join us and the world will live as one,” in the immortal words of John Lennon, the only hope for the future of our world.

A Credit to Volunteers

Volunteers are the people working with true passion to create the change that they desire in the world today. These are the true movers and shakers: the ones willing to do what they love for no monetary reward. They are people who put their values and beliefs into action.
Volunteers give over 1 billion hours of volunteer time annually, according to the Volunteer Canada website. This is the equivalent of 549,000 full time jobs which surely must inject millions of dollars worth of services into the Canadian economy each year. And in return for their labours: nada, zippo, zilch. That’s right; volunteers are not fiscally rewarded for their labours at all, and often are not even thanked.
I have an idea to change all of that, a modest proposal, if you will. Let’s give the volunteers a tax credit for their time in the same way we credit financial donations. Financial donations are very well and good of course, but donations of time can be equally as valuable. And donations of passion and enthusiasm can be worth their financial value many times over in the action that they represent within communities.
How can you place a monetary value on the many dynamic and spirited activities of volunteers? How can you price out the value of taking a Brownie pack out on a snowshoeing trip where friendships are cemented, lifelong memories created and physical challenges overcome? What amount for cooking and serving a Thanksgiving Dinner to homeless people on a cold Autumn night? And what is it worth when a needle exchange worker takes in a contaminated syringe in return for a clean one? All of these things are priceless, beyond value.
Volunteers reap benefits from their efforts. These benefits include personal well being, a sense of purpose and seeing their dreams being put into action. What they are lacking is recognition by society that their contributions are worthwhile and to be respected. In Ancient Greece a life of service to the community was seen as a life of the highest value to be respected above all others. In Canada we hear, “Oh well, she’s not really working now, just doing a bit of volunteer work here and there.” Because it is not fiscally recognized, volunteerism has lost a great deal of its respect. A great number of volunteers are women: women putting their passion into action. Fiscal recognition by the government would go a long way toward righting the lack of respect given to volunteers that is compounded by the patriarchal ways of our society.
I suggest a tax credit worth $20 for every hour that a person volunteers. Simply administered, in a way that each volunteer carries a card that the organization receiving the volunteer time can sign off on every time. $20 per hour may seem a high wage for some volunteer labour skills, however when one considers that the savings would only be at the tax rate of the individual, with the maximum tax rate at 50%, the wage shrinks indeed. The average number of hours volunteered by an individual in 2000 was 162, which would translate into tax savings of under $1000 at the maximum tax rate. Not a lot in terms of their hours worked, but a grand gesture in terms of the value society places on volunteers.
Recognizing the value and significance of volunteers will show our children that we value the concept of volunteerism. Our children will be the volunteers of the next generation: caring for us as seniors, keeping the homeless fed and putting their heart and soul into a fundamental commitment to the future. Ensuring the continuance of a giving society will ensure that positive change and community building will continue to occur.

Go Gently Into That Good Night

Growing up my family had a dog. It was neither cutest dog, nor the best behaved, but nonetheless, we loved her. We called her Suzie and she was with us for over ten years. When Suzie got too old we put her to sleep. Hers was a death with dignity. Her loved ones were all able to say goodbye and watch her fall into a peaceful death that looked like a nap.
Growing up my family had a grandmother. She was the best sort of Grandmother: the sort who spent a lot time totally focused on her grandchildren. The sort of Grandmother who baked cookies, scratched feet and took us to Disneyland. We called her Gangy and she was part of my life for twenty years. Before she got too old, she got sick. Gangy got very sick and died a terrible, painful, death. Hers was a death completely lacking in dignity. Her loved ones were all able to see clearly her pain, her suffering and her slowing falling into a fitful half death before at long last succumbing to the peaceful death that we attain in the end.
Is euthanasia an acceptable alternative to the sort of death my grandmother suffered? I believe it is--under strictly controlled conditions. I believe that a person dying of a terminal disease or an individual in chronic pain has the right to decide when and how their demise should occur.
Some would argue that allowing euthanasia is a slippery slope to the day that the lives of the sick, the old and the disabled will be seen only through the lens of cost efficiency and convenience. Doctors will decide to euthanize based upon their own biases rather than on the wishes of the patient. A shrinking healthcare budget and an aging population will mean that physicians are forced to decide which patients are worth treating and which are not. Citing Robert Latimer, advocates for the rights of the disabled claim that disabled people everywhere will be rampantly murdered at their parents mere convenience.
These very arguments against euthanasia speak loudest in its favor. If the reasons for not providing something at all are that it will run rampant once we allow a crack in the door, then the answer is not simply to close that door forever, but rather to open it in a controlled environment that allows informed, intelligent and humane euthanasia to be provided to terminally ill patients who request it. Checks and balances can be imposed, such as the permission of two doctors, the patient and a relative, required absolutely every time. With an appropriate structure of procedures and policies in place, we can live an enlightened life at the same time as practicing responsibility and respect for human life.
Rather than an argument in favor of keeping euthanasia illegal, I believe these arguments to speak loudly of the need for strict regulation and procedure of euthanasia to ensure that patients who want a death with dignity are given that right, while those who do not want such a death are safe from being involuntarily euthanized. Euthanasia must never be allowed in a case where the patient is against being euthanized. For Tracy Latimer we will never know how she felt about the matter, but because she could not tell us we must assume that the desire to live was still strong.
However, in the case of the terminally ill patient who has only
pain and decline left before him or her, there should be a choice. A choice between a potentially painful natural death and a "gentle death" that is medically induced. We have no qualms about prolonging the suffering of a dying individual through medical means such as ventilators or feeding tubes, but medical intervention to help an individual "go gently into that good night" is not tolerated.
Ask yourself. How would you want to die?

Environmental Economics

Scary stories abound in environmental circles. For instance, did you know apparently the hormones in birth control pills entering the water cycle through human urine are modifying the mating abilities of fish? Or that genetically modified canola plants that have been altered to avoid being killed by pesticides are proving immortal, and threaten to choke out all other crops on the prairies? Have you considered mad cow disease as the ultimate argument for vegetarianism? After all, if all cows were vegetarian, they would never have contracted this dread disease in the first place. If all humans were vegetarian they would be permanently and absolutely protected from it.
Even if these horror stories are exaggerated, which they likely are, the fact remains that this Earth is being damaged by human beings. You can see the evidence for yourself on any clear day in Vancouver. Head over the Arthur Laing or Alex Fraser bridges for a view to the East that will cause you to choke just by looking at it. Try going fishing to one of the lakes in the interior of British Columbia: a mere thirty years ago they were teaming with healthy fish, today you are lucky to catch one.
However, money holds all the cards in our world. Despite evidence to the contrary, governments refuse to give incentives for non-polluting industries, or disincentives to polluters. Governments refuse to sign agreements such as the Kyoto accord which would at least monitor the amounts of emissions. If we accept the fact that the Earth is really all we have, and without it human beings become as extinct as the dinosaurs, surely wisdom must suggest working hard to try and maintain the planet’s liveability.
Can you envision a world where financial gain is not the ultimate goal? A world where ecological gain becomes the pre-eminent goal of all people? Perhaps the only way to achieve such a pipe dream is to equate ecological gain with profits and ecological damage with losses. The particulars would need to be worked out, however the necessity is resolute.
In the spirit of self-preservation, we would be wise to assume that wilderness is important in and of itself, just in case it is. In the possibility that wilderness does have intrinsic value, we humans would be best to treat it, and preserve it, so that it is there for seven future generations, as was the belief among Native American populations. Native viewpoints from time immemorial have imbued humans with the responsibility to maintain the balance and health of the natural world as a solemn spiritual duty that an individual must perform daily—not simply as admirable, abstract, ethical imperatives that can be ignored as one chooses. This spiritual duty is present because Native Americans believe that the spirit of life exists in all of nature, not just in human beings.
As we have proven over the past century, even when clear evidence exists about damage to the earth and the depletion of non-renewable resources, we continue to damage the earth in some sort of naïve hope that the earth will take care of itself. As Rachel Carson suggests in Silent Spring, given centuries, the earth probably could adapt; given the rapid pace of technological advances producing new and more harmful chemicals and technologies, the earth has no hope of keeping up.
Whether or not it can be proven, or merely just believed as I do, that wilderness has it’s own intrinsic value,
humans would be wise to adopt an ecological ethic that protects wilderness from human devastation so that the
earth remains a place that sustains life in all of its various and glorious forms.