Scarcity

Picture taken from "The Road", Dimension Films 2009

A long time ago in a less developed period of the world, two men were walking in separate parts of a forest, starving, and looking for any signs of something to eat. It happened that as each were walking, they came across what appeared to be an apple tree, gleaming with fruit that would soon disappear for the season. As each man walked towards their salvation, they suddenly realized that they had come across the same apple tree. Instantaneously, a problem presented itself: This was the first bit of food they had seen for days. The season of dormant harvest approached and what was once a bountiful last minute prize had now become threatened. Who knows what else lied in the forest? Whatever was out there was going to take time and energy to find, and ultimately a long term plan needed to be realized in order for these starving souls to survive. There was one thing that was certain: For any chance of success, these apples were a key to the solution.

Finally, one man gave voice to a plan, "There are two of us, which means there is twice the amount of imagination and creativity. We can take these apples and split them, and then together, move forward through this forest and think of a way to make it through the winter. With the both of us we are certain to think of something." Without even a second of thought, the other man jumped on top of the would be planner, found a stone among the brush, and pounded it into his head over, and over, and over again, until finally, there was nothing left but brittle bone and flesh. This fierce, crazed man, then stood up, calmly walked over to the tree, filled a longtime empty satchel with apples, and slowly continued on his way. 

Scarcity can bring out the worst in a human. And it can do so in an understandable way. We have seen this depicted so viscerally in films that recreate this story very imaginably. One that comes to mind is "The Road", adapted from the book by Cormac McCarthy. This film is the story of a father's struggle to survive the end of the world with his son. Food has become so obsolete that other survivors have been relegated to cannibalism. We see in the protagonist of the story not only a struggle to survive, but a struggle to keep his and his son's humanity, while doing anything imaginable to stay alive. I would wager that any of us looking at this man wouldn't do things differently.

Our current ideological spectrum in America, and in many parts of the world, is a reply to the question of scarcity. The esteemed political scientist, Harold Lasswell, said it best, "Politics is who gets what, when, where, and how." Our market system, based on our ideological roots, is also a reply to the vignette above. If a person has a limited amount of resources, what lengths are we willing to say are acceptable to make sure those resources continue to keep coming through? If your only visible chance at survival is a bunch of apples, and another person stands in your way, is it okay to remove that person from the equation? Are we, as humans, with calculable and creative minds, obligated to join forces and think of a solution to survival together, even though we don't know if there's more sources of food in the forest? These are the questions that have formed the basis of the ideals that went into founding our country, our market system, our way of life. And it all revolves around the idea of scarcity, the idea that the resources we use in this world are finite!

So as creative and forward-thinking beings, we joined forces to find a way forward. We created something that would introduce competition in providing the finite resources of this world: currency. If people come forward, with some form of money, and spend a portion of that money on a finite resource, then the amount of that resource that is delved out is then regulated. And to stop the person who is selling that resource from taking advantage of people and driving up the price, the person across the street is selling the same resource for a little less. Competition. Automatic, unfettered, regulation. Add technology to this equation, and a system comes about of providing resources quickly and smoothly, allowing as many people as possible to bring a portion of their money and purchase said resources. Boom! We have a system! It's a good system. It harbored the Industrial Revolution, it ended the Feudal Society we lived in before, and it allowed the common man to actually make a stake for himself and his family in this crazy world of ours.

And then gradually, some developments occurred. The population started to increase. Slowly but surely, no longer was a smaller portion of people vying for a larger portion of resources, but conversely, the resources couldn't be produced fast enough, or the resources started to show signs of dwindling. The people who were selling the resources discovered that if they raised the prices, this would not only slow the rate at which their resources would go out, but it would make the seller a lot more money. And a second development was born: a person can make a shitload of money from scarcity!

Through time, the people who were able to make money from this system started to shape the ideology. First, they represented the victory of the American Dream. The common man could rise up to be as rich as a king. Second, the system that allows this needs to be guarded at all costs. But as time went on, the population got bigger and bigger, the prices of these resources needed to go higher, inflation needed to occur to protect the economy, and the effects of all of this started to show in horrific ways. Poverty, lack of nutrition, poor health, lack of healthcare, rising health costs, unaffordable housing, poorer neighborhoods, crime, fear, death, all of these became apparent ways of life that represented the results of scarcity combined with a growing population.

The response to this has been dismal and consistent. Both sides of the ideological spectrum say, "Give our ideology free reign, without any elements of your ideology, and everything will get better." And when things get worse they say, "Well, there is too much compromise, there is too much of your ideology mixed with our ideology, and that's why this isn't working out." Yet the harboring of scarcity remains untouched. And here's the question that no one in power asks: WHY?

What's the answer to this question? There are a lot of them! But are they meaningful, are they thought out, are they logical, or do they represent a system that is already at work, already moving, a system that is being guarded at all costs? What are the answers to these questions, and why aren't we, as a society, demanding them?

Geothermal Energy

Those are all some first steps. But they aren't the most important questions that need to be asked. The most important question that can be, and should be asked, by every common person, by every politician, by every person who claims to have a stake in our society is this: If our technology became advanced enough that we could produce and harbor sustainable or infinite resources that would create abundance in the world, are we obligated to utilize those resources and technologies above technologies that sustain finite resources?

This. Is. A. Monumental. Question.

This is a question that goes so far beyond Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. It goes beyond our current market economy. It reaches into the very depths of what it means to be human. What are our obligations? Honestly, and for now we'll call this a hypothetical question, if you knew without a doubt that the ability to create these technologies was out there, the ability to tap into infinite resources for things like energy, fuel, and food, would you say, "Yes, lets do it." or would you say, "No, our current way of doing things, or the current way we should be doing things is better."? What is your answer?

The key to all of this, the absolute penultimate reply to all of the questions above, is that whether or not that technology exists we must recognize a few things about ourselves. First, there is an unbelievable amount of profit in scarcity and there is virtually no profit in abundance. Take the oil companies for example. As we know, oil is a finite resource, and it is our primary resource for energy. The oil companies are making unfathomable profits from selling their resource, due largely to the fact that the populations of China and India have been added to the pool of people demanding it. Now if a way of producing an infinite resource that could provide energy for people as effectively as, or even more effectively than oil, then those businesses are no longer operating. The people running those companies are not making money. The shareholders that have a stake in those companies will lose all of their stock in them. In essence, those companies will go to extraordinary lengths to make sure this does not happen. And they have a HUGE demographic among the common person backing them up.

The second recognition we need to make in all of this is that whether or not we have the technology right now, today, we need to point ourselves in that direction regardless. Our focus as a society is almost entirely facing towards what's right in front of us, instead of what's up ahead in the distance, and our current ideologies are the blinders that are keeping it that way. Whether or not the technologies are there, we should be consistently focused on creating, approving, and/or unleashing them, because as people with conscience, we should always be looking towards the betterment of society. And this obligation is exponentially greater for any persons who calls themselves a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, who say they represent a faith that explicitly puts at its forefront "Taking Care of Others".

Yes, this does entail companies going out of business. This does entail people losing their jobs. And this does entail change. But it will allow us to evolve. It will allow us to create a better world for the future, a world that systemically changes the conditions of poverty and scarcity. Perhaps most importantly, though, is that this is how we survive in the future, because our current progression is leading us into a world where scarcity will turn into absence, and the fear and danger that will accompany it will be far greater than what we are seeing today. As it stands now, we are a people who are using the resources of this world in a way that is leading straight to depletion. And lets be honest: Earth will survive. The only ways humanity will adapt is either catastrophic population loss, or complete population deletion. The time for evolution is at hand. How will we respond?

*The next part of the series will focus on a practical look at technology as the key to evovling, which will address the political issues of drastic change and the affects they might have on the world.

Ideology

As I reflect on the current shutdown that our country is facing, I'm confronted with a stark fact that has been on my mind for years. In regards to this economic impasse, it comes down to one simple fact: This is a battle of ideology... and ideology my friends, might be the single greatest hindrance the United States of America faces.

Let me take one quick step back. I would like this to be the first post on a series. The theme of this series is the betterment of our society and the betterment of our planet. I am constantly thinking about ways in which we, as a people, can grow and evolve into better humans, better stewards, and ultimately, better Christians (although I would like this blog to be for all wakes of people). I constantly obsess over the mechanisms that could lead us forward, and the ones that keep us backwards. Over the course of the last 6 years or so, there have been observations I've noted, which seem to be affirmed by the brilliant people out there who are paving the way for evolving. So to begin with the series, I would like to start with the concept of ideology, especially how it pertains to America and the current impasse we are struggling with.

Ideology is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as, "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." On a surface read this definition does not come off as an evil. In fact, I would even call an inherent necessity of human beings in order to move forward as a collective body. We need ideology/ideology is simply a way of describing the beliefs that guide a society. For example, one ideological belief we have as Americans is that all humans [sic] are created equal with inalienable rights. That sounds great right? We can hear this in the rhetoric of our elected officials. They would all agree (whether they mean it or not) that we are equal and have inalienable rights and any who disagreed would probably find him or herself out of a job.

However, the surface of something rarely represents what is truly underneath. The truth is that ideology is as inherent to society as human nature is to people. The ideal nature of ideology would be to show us what beliefs are guiding our society so that we could visualize and move forward, or adjust and move forward. Unfortunately, what really lies under the surface of ideology is a monster, a being that has a mind of its own, some kind of squid that has it's tentacles in every facet of society and its collective citizens. The truth is that ideology has become the puppet master of an uninformed body of people, feeding them the lie that they in fact do have the information they need to give intelligent input into the direction our country should move.

We have become so reliant on ideology to tell us where to go, what to believe, who to vote for, what mechanisms of life are important, that it has literally become a wall blocking our path to a better development. Any shnuck can claim to be an intelligent, voting participant if they just follow the script ideology has given them. And what happens if a person strays from the script? The rest of society demonizes them as an anarchist or a socialist.

Let's take our current situation. There are two ideologies present, both guided by the same overarching ideology of free market capitalism, or free market enterprise if you will, as the only mechanism to attain healthy growth (is it possible that there are other ways?). One ideology's script says that it believes the best way forward is if private businesses have as few regulations as possible so that they can do what it is they do, unchecked by the government. Through the invisible system of competition these businesses will provide the best products and the most healthy way forward. This ideology also stretches into the individual telling them that the healthiest form of society is to have as small amount of taxes as conceivably possible and everything should be privatized. Anything that comes from the government is bad. Why? Because once upon a time England tried to tax us without giving us any representation in Parliament, and because once upon a time totalitarian governments decided to call themselves socialist. And if anyone strays from this script they are a socialist too (not in it's true sense, but in the sense of Communist Russia and Communist China) and any worthwhile ideas coming from them must not be considered, in fact they should be rejected.

On the other side is another ideological script. This one acknowledges the flaws of human nature, guided by the monopolies of the industrial revolution. This script says that anything unchecked will ultimately lead to greed and corruption. Through government checks, human greed can be held at bay and our society will have steady, albeit, slow growth. Taxes should be moderate, but not too progressive, because free market capitalism still needs to claim the day (they don't want anyone to call them a socialist). There needs to always be a security blanket for those in society who need "an extra push" because we have systems of corruption, racism, and segregation still in place, and in order to ensure that the security blankets are still in place, we need to spend money, because spending money equals a healthier society, and a healthier society can pay their taxes. If anyone strays from this script they are demonized as a corrupt person who only wants to make money at the expense of anyone who gets in their way.

Both of these ideologies have their merits and both of them have their gross downfalls, but most importantly, they are set in stone! Our people have grown up with one or the other instilled in them, beaten into them, shrouded over their faces. They have been given a code of conduct and a language to understand it. There are key words that are used to back up their logic and there are key words that alert them to the enemy.

What has become apparent to me over the years are three reasons why ideology might be the single greatest hindrance to a collective people developing further. First is that it provides the lay person with a language and a belief that is not only easy to comprehend, but easy to espouse and reiterate. With the majority of our population working at jobs outside of political and societal education, maintaining responsibilities outside of their jobs, and trying to sneak in a little entertainment where they can, who has time to learn of new and innovative ways forward? People will always go for the simpler route because people always want to seem like they know what they're talking about, and the simpler route is an ideology that has already provided a language and belief system that accommodates the working person.  

Second, ideology is the end all be all, as opposed to the mirror that shows us what our guiding beliefs are. It should never be the end all be all. When ideology becomes rigid, it does not allow new ideas to permeate because they are foreign and they might upset the already ordered belief system, regardless if those ideas might lead to a higher form of living. There is a term for the person who allows their ideology to be the end all be all. They are called ideologues and they exist on both the left and the right. These are the soldiers of their current ideology. They protect and attack ANYTHING that looks foreign. They can be recognized because they have made the simple ideological language their own and they use the key words that have already been given to them.

Lastly, ideology has become the mechanism to keep the masses in line, on board, and approving. It is another way to maintain the status quo. When people are so focused on their ideology as being the "best way forward" and the other ideology as being the enemy, they are given a battle to fight, and fight it they do! This battle occupies their time, their energy, and their intellect, and keeps them from looking around, from seeing different paths, and from considering new ways forward. With their minds focused on a battle that was simply handed down to them the status quo can be maintained and free market capitalism, with all of it's greed, and little of it's benefits can keep on going the way it's always gone.

Considering our current government shut down, it can be easily ascertained that this is not a shutdown over differences of the budget, but a shutdown over the differences between ideology, fought by ideologues. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid... they are all ideologues, fighting over who has the superior ideology. And the centerpiece of this ideological battle has taken on the form of healthcare. The evidence: We currently have a shutdown of our federal government, which not only is affecting museums and national parks/sites, but also hundreds of thousands of toddlers who are not able to benefit from the Head Start Program, and hundreds of thousands of senior citizens who rely on Meals on Wheels. The Republican Party has been very explicit that they did not pass a budget because Democrats would not consider defunding the Affordable Care Act, which has nothing to do with the budgetary needs of the country.

Now lets consider the issue of the Affordable Care Act. This is a law that was put in place that stands in stark contrast to the ideological script of those on the right. It is implemented and backed by the Federal Government (Big Government = Bad), and entails the demand that all people purchase insurance (ideological translation: tax), as well as companies with 50 plus employees (Business Regulation). There's no way that a person of the Republican Party could support something with this kind of language! However, there's a stark difference: Yes, Republicans are against this for ideological reasons, and they voted against it, but it passed! It passed! And then the next avenue was sought: a lawsuit fought in the Supreme Court. And it was upheld! The last facet was the elections in 2012, elections that were considered to be the validating or invalidating factor of the legitimacy of the ACA. Not only was Barack Obama reelected, but Democrats gained a bigger majority in the Senate and held on to any contested seat in the House. Another ideological belief most Americans would vocally espouse, the democratic process, was utilized to legitimize a provocative law and the result was passage by Congress (validation), the reelection of those who passed it (validation), and the upholding of said law by the Supreme Court (validation).

At that moment the issue should be done, dealt with, we move on. But the ideological loyalty of a small, yet forceful faction of people have gone beyond the realms of a representative democracy and now our government has had its first shutdown in 17 years. This is quite frankly a perfect example of the demon known as ideology. What does this say about the value you we place on democracy, when it is aloud to run its course, when challenges of a contentious law are taken on as our democratic system allows, and then that law is upheld, but then we give idealogues room to proclaim loudly, "We do not agree and we are not going to abide."? This says that we now put more stock in defending ideologies than the democratic process that our forefathers put into place (and how many of the Tea Party like to quote our forefathers).

What is the solution? Simple... let ideology be what it should: a mirror. Let ideology show us our reflection and if we do not like what we see, then we should be a people who, without shame, can say that we do not like our reflection and would like to better ourselves. Let us be a people who honor innovation, new ideas, and challenges, not a people who view that which is different as a threat that must be destroyed. Lastly, when we can acknowledge that ideology has been a puppeteer and we have been puppets, then we can finally move forward and better the reflection we see staring back at us. At the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the mindset of the day was that the lower class needed to work the land while the aristocracy owned and profited from such tasks. With the introduction of steam powered technology the mindset changed and the world evolved. There were a lot of issues in the changes that came and there were many crimes and corrupt practices that enfolded and were eventually worked out, but the mindset changed and we developed the free market system. While in its infancy and in its golden years free market capitalism was the necessary vehicle we needed to evolve and develop further. With it came a new system of beliefs, a new ideology, and it is that ideology that is in control today, preventing us from getting rid of it, preventing us from evolving. But we are at the brink of a new revolution, an opportunity to take on new, innovative, brilliant ideas that can move our world into a future where all people have food, shelter, energy, transportation, and where we live in harmony with the world and the resources it provides for us. The only question is will we accept these new ideas, or will we let the ideologues of the world continue to fear and destroy them? The answer lies with all of you. 

*Some time soon I will explore more of what was laid out here in regards to scarcity, our political system and simple, but radical, ideas of improving it, how technology can bring us into a future full of abundance, and how the idea of such a future is usually met with great fear and violence. Thanks for reading.  

The Unchurched Person

This title has gained a lot of momentum recently, especially in theological worlds. "The Unchurched." What does it mean? A couple centuries ago this term would have been used to describe those the church needed to reach, the uncivilized, the natives, the indigenous, the heathens. Today, this term probably comes closer to representing a group of people that the Church feels it has no need or possibility of reaching.

For me, "the unchurched" hits a little closer to home than most. For me, I was "the unchurched" and I am "the unchurched." I grew up going to church every Sunday, I was confirmed, I did youth group as a kid, and I went to a Christian elementary. So there was always a foundation. However, shortly into jr. high I stopped going to church for the same reasons that many people stop going to church: it was no longer relevant and it no longer represented a place that I wanted to be at on Sunday mornings (God forbid during the week). And I don't regret it.

Instead my church was my bed and my worship time was the dreams I was immersed in. The table I gathered at on Sunday morning wasn't for Eucharist, but cereal. And my ekklessia? The unchurched secular friends I had made in public school. I became one of "the unchurched" people.

Throughout the second half of high school and all of college I lived a secular life. School, high school football, homework, later on, college classes, a bachelors degree, these were all the norm. But my extra time usually included smoking pot, going to concerts and shows, going to bars and meeting new people, hanging out with friends and talking about sports, movies, life, the world, etc. We probably did some things the Church would vehemently disagree with, but we were engaged in the world, we were smart, and we were thriving.

Yeah I made it back to church, and it was wholly by choice. I didn't have a scary "call experience" that made me afraid of the secular world causing me to flee into the sanctuary of stereotypical church life. I discovered my faith again as an adult, and I discovered something miraculous. My faith was in total cohesion with my "unchurched" upbringing. I could still be myself here. Most of what I had assumed was wrong. And, our faith can be very relevant and very authentic to the "unchurched person."

I've been active in church now for 5 years and through that time I have still maintained my relationships and place with the so-called unchurched people. From those that know how active I've been, as well as the fact that I'm at seminary, I have received an array of comments, insights, perspectives, stories, ventings, etc. I think what I find so interesting is that unchurched people are very aware of the Church's presence. And let me tell you, it's not a good perception, most of which, I, and probably we, agree with.

To conclude I want to follow up with two very general comments. One, we all know that mainline churches across the board are in decline. And these churches can no longer rely on disenfranchised churchgoers, shopping for a new church, to keep their numbers up (also, it should never be about the numbers).