Slow Death by Big Business

In Slow Death by Rubber Duck the authors test changes in chemical levels in their blood as a result of using certain toxic items. The outcome was frightening: both authors saw two- to seven-fold increases due to using everyday household products in high concentration. What is equally frightening is how hard it has been, and continues to be, to get these products banned from use. With each chemical, a common pattern emerges: numerous studies and real-world cases come out that illustrate the toxicity of the chemical, only for the various lobbyists representing the chemical and manufactoring companies to fight back and maintain the status quo. Even if a chemical does manage to get banned, the companies simply tweak the formula, and replace it with a very similar compound with equally adverse effects, causing the whole cycle to run again.

As horrible as it is to see these chemicals stay in the products that we use everyday and toxify our bodies, unfortunately this is only one symptom of a bigger problem. We have let the government become dominated by Big Business to the point that individual citizens no longer have the control to remove substances that pollute us and negatively impact our health. What's more, the onus is on scientists to prove that a substances causes serious harm beyond any doubt before a chemical is banned. There is no responsibility on the part of the companies that use and manufacture these chemicals to prove that they are safe before they enter the marketplace and pollute our lives.

Unfortunately for the people of the world, this is only one example of how the demands of Big Business control our legislative process. For all the flack they take, even Big Pharma isn't this bad: at least they have to run tests (however flawed) to prove that their new drugs work and meet certain safety thresholds before they are approved by the government. This problem is not limited to toxic chemicals, environmental issues, or even prescription drugs. It is lurking behind every backroom deal between the government of some country and a large multinational corporation. It has reached a point where the rights of companies are greater than the rights of individuals, and the penalties when companies are rarely held accountable for their misdeeds are laughable in comparison to the penalties faced for civilian offenders. What has to happen before we wake up and demand change? Is it even possible to effect change when faced by the Goliath of Big Business lobbyists and their infinite bank accounts?

To bring this piece back to the topic in Slow Death, the second-last chapter demonstrates that perhaps the tide is turning. The chapter outlines the process that ultimately led to the banning of bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles in Ontario, and eventually Canada. What makes this example truly promising is that unlike so many toxic chemicals of the past, BPA was banned before there was an outbreak of dying or severely ill people that could definitively be traced back to the chemical in question. Finally the government had decided that it was "better to be safe than sorry."* Although this only banned BPA from baby bottles, the ensuing press frenzy resulted in certain retailers, such as Mountain Equipment Coop, to preemptively remove all products containing BPA from their shelves. As of today, consumer demand drives companies to produce BPA-free products.

While it is unfortunate that BPA has lasted in the marketplace (and thus the environment) as long as it has, at least it is slowly being weeded out without having to first witness an episode like Minamata. Hopefully, this will symbolize a movement towards a more balanced relationship between the rights of people and the rights of corporations in today's democratic governments. The result will be a political environment conducive to banning the use of toxic chemicals, to forcing companies to prove the safety of new products before they are put into our environment, and to putting the needs and health of people above the profit of corporations. Only once this paradigm shift occurs will we truly be able to break the cycle and eliminate the life-threatening problems so succinctly demonstrated in Slow Death. At the very least, if the toxic side-effects of these products are allowed to run their course, companies will have no one left to sell their products to.

*Excerpt from Health Minister Tony Clement's press conference announcing the ban of BPA in baby bottles.

The Tao within You

Having recently read The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff, I have found myself seeing the world around me through a new lens. As someone who is still searching for principles to guide herself through the world, and someone with a love of all things Winnie-the-Pooh, my expectations of the book were high. I was not disappointed--the philosophy of the book resonated with me so much that the more I read, the more I realized I had already been traveling down the Taoist path without even knowing it. That being said, the book still enlightened me by succinctly explaining some of the key principles in a relatable manner through everyone's favorite Bear. With that in mind, I would like to share some of these tenets, and demonstrate how they have already permeated our day-to-day lives.

The principle of the Uncarved Block is the first, and simplest: things in their original simplicity contain their own natural power, which is easily spoiled and lost when that simplicity is changed. When a person is in the state of the Uncarved Block, they can enjoy the simple and the quiet, the natural and the plain. Although the style of our modern lives has us complicating things and constantly changing to keep pace with newer, more complex technology, the Uncarved Block still shines through. We experience it when we read a book; when we turn the TV off; when we just sit at the beach, enjoying the sun, listen to the waves, and do nothing. We don't give ourselves enough time to be in the state of the Uncarved Block anymore, but the fact remains that we enjoy those moments for the relaxation and peace they bring us.

The concept of Inner Nature is broken up into Things As They Are and What's There. Things As They Are dictates that everything has its own place and function, and What's There states that you need to identify and work within your limitations. Combined these two concepts form your Inner Nature, which is the guiding principle we all should use to help us meander down the path of life. Simple as this sounds, too many times people try to defy the laws of nature and use things where they don't belong, and can't work. Society tells us that if we keep pushing, anything is possible. But anything is not possible. Everyone has come up against a wall in their life that cannot be broken or by-passed. The secret of the people who have succeeded despite that wall is that they have learned to stop fighting it and use it in it's proper place to their own advantage.

In opposition to these two ideas is the Bisy Backson. The Bisy Backson is that person who is always so busy rushing and hurrying to meet a goal, that he is unable to appreciate anything in life. He is the man who is so busy working to make a lot of money, but has no time to enjoy anything that his money buys because he is so busy working. The idea isn't to get rid of goals, but instead to focus not just on the end result, but the process along the way because it is the process that makes us happy and wise. When we focus on the process, we can not only eliminate goals that provide no benefit, but also goals that are misaligned with what we really want. Everyone has started a process, only to figure out half-way through that they no longer want what they were originally aiming for. At that point, we base our decision on the process: if the process is still enjoyable, we will continue, but if not, we will give up and focus our energy on something more fruitful. In doing so we are rejecting the Bisy Backson, and instead Enjoying the Process.

Lastly, the belief that Everyone is Special. Unlike modern society, which focuses on a few "special" elites (movie stars and the like), and influences us to think that unless we accomplish something great we are not good enough, Taoism teaches that Everyone is Special in one way or another. The trick is to begin by appreciating who you are and to work within your own strengths and weaknesses (wink, wink, Inner Nature). Who hasn't embarked upon an endeavor in life (be it a job, a vacation, or a relationship) only to discover that it runs counter to our own nature? Although it can be challenging to jump ship and move to a path, the reward is a sense of happiness in what we are doing. When we follow our Inner Nature, we can lead a more productive life, and discover what it is that makes us Special.

The trick when reading something like this is to not just shrug it off as an antiquated eastern philosophy that has no relevance in our modern western society. Instead, the purpose is to analyze the knowledge that is being presented, and adapt it to our current lives in order to better them. But first we need to be open and willing to accept that someone else might have gotten it right, and that we as a society might have gotten it wrong. With reference to The Tao of Pooh, we need to perceive that it is the presence of Taoist principles that helps to explain the innate appeal of a favorite literary character. In our own lives, we need to realize that the benefits of Taoism are already exemplified in our everyday experiences. We don't need to change who we are; we just need to find what is already there, and let it thrive.

A Wiki Wiki Future

The exponential increase in textbook costs for higher education students over the past decade has students, professors, publishers, and governments considering alternatives. One such alternative, Wikibooks, combines the open-source concept of Wikipedia with a more traditional textbook format. Although Wikibooks is yet to be adopted by the majority of professors, in an age of increasingly expensive textbooks, widespread Internet access with a plethora free information, and a more technologically savvy student population, it seems that the days of the paper textbook may be dwindling.

Although the free cost is perhaps the biggest selling point for students, this is not the only benefit Wikibooks can offer when compared to traditional textbooks. They are often easier to navigate, provide direct links to Wikipedia entries for further information, searchable, and can include other media such as videos and sound bytes that paper textbooks lack. Furthermore, in an age with increasing eco-awareness, Wikibooks are also a more environmentally friendly alternative since they require no paper, ink, shipping, storage, or stores to sell them in. 

Despite the numerous benefits, there are still drawbacks to Wikibooks that have contributed to the industry’s limited adoption. For example, many of the books available are only half or partially finished, which limits the number of courses that could adopt them as a primary text. While these challenges can be overcome with minor changes or further development, the biggest obstacle is the professors themselves. For one, their widespread aversion towards Wikipedia and wiki-style resources and adherence to the peer-reviewed gold standard is almost universal. Secondly, perhaps the biggest element that plagues the adoption of Wikibooks is that it does not provide professors with the ancillary tools that publishing companies provide for free when their textbook is selected.

Regardless of the stigma associated with Wikibooks there are several noteworthy adoptions that demonstrate the feasibility of this alternative. Three professors have effectively used Wikibooks as the principal text in education courses at the Old Dominion University and in business courses at the University of Denver. Another similar example is an introductory sociology textbook written by Ryan T Cragun of the University of Cincinnati. Wikibooks have also proven successful in niche markets that are too small for traditional textbooks to be a profitable enterprise for large publishing companies, such as a Hebrew textbook in information systems.  

Despite the merits of Wikibooks and the successful example of their adoption, they currently do not pose a big threat to higher education publishers due to the conservative attitudes of many professors, and their reliance on the ancillary materials provided by publishing companies. However, if Wikibooks were altered to be more acceptable to professors they could emerge as a viable alternative to traditional paper textbooks. In order to preempt this potential competition, current publishing houses should re-evaluate their products and production models to incorporate the advantages of Wikibooks while maintaining the standards that professors rely on.  

What is English?

Everyone who has struggled with the notion of "correctness" in spoken or written English knows that what is considered "right" is not well-defined. I myself have advised many ESL speakers of this fact in order to ease their fear of making a big grammar gaffe. In Toronto in particular, where 49% of the population is born outside of Canada, the most common ESL pitfalls almost go unnoticed. And now with the influx of internet terminology (and thus the creation of new words), and the relaxing of rules that limit terms to specific parts of speech (the "verbing" of nouns like "Google"), the English language is changing even faster than ever before. So where does this leave the rules that were so tediously drilled into our heads in English class? What is the English language, and who controls it?

I had always prided myself as someone well-informed of grammar, and styled myself as a bit of a grammar stickler when it came to certain mistakes. But as my life was increasingly invaded by technology, I found myself verbing nouns, and telling my friends to just "Google that." It seemed that as I drifted away from the formal education of my youth into the real world where all that matters is comprehension, my concern over the nuances of English grammar quickly faded. I learned to live with the reality of my surroundings: a population of people who either don't care if they incorrectly use "whom" or those who are trying to learn later on in life what is arguably the hardest language to grasp.

Just when I thought that I had reconciled my knowledge with the actuality of 21st century life, I took a course in copy editing. I was instantly flooded with a slew of archaic and tedious grammar rules, the complexity of Canadian English spelling, and the subjectivity of what it means to apply these rules to a manuscript. Learning the inane history of how "rules" like never ending a sentence with a preposition arose certainly did not help. And to top it all off, I was told that due to changes in usage, half the rules I was currently learning may be obsolete within the next 10 years.

The contention of these two spheres--grammar as it is taught and grammar as it is used--caused me to wonder who really determines what is "English." On the one hand, correct usage is largely determined by the printed word (this is what style and grammar guides tend to base any changes for new editions on), and the printed word is controlled by copy editors, who by the very nature of their profession tend to favour a more traditional approach to grammar. On the other hand, what is written in print is influenced by the way people talk, and informal publications such as blogs. So where does the balance lie? Do both sides have an equal, but checked say or does one have more clout than the other? And is the balance of power changing?

I certainly don't have an answer to that--that would require very serious research, and certainly a longer article than what I am currently writing. But one thing I do know is who is not in control: a regulatory language body such as France's l'Académie française. When I first heard that the French had a government-sponsored academic body to regulate language, I laughed at the absurdity of French bureaucracy. But now, having seen the problems that arise when no clear standard is present (I'm looking at you Canadian spelling), I can appreciate the benefits in having an authority to decide once and for all how to spell analyze (as opposed to analyse).

But, as much as an English Academy would certainly simplify all things grammar and spelling, in the end I think the drawbacks out way the advantages. One of the big differences between French and English is that unlike French, English arose as a language of the people. Although it is currently evolving at a faster pace than ever before, changes in usage are not a 21st century phenomenon, as anyone who has read Shakespeare can appreciate. And while this can make life challenging, and although it raises many questions, I believe it creates a much more dynamic and functional language. Even when all the rules are broken--and sometimes especially if they are--we are able to communicate and understand each other. And after all, isn't that the whole point of language anyway?

Hippocrates' Legacy Lost?

For a book titled Hippocrates' Shadow, I expected David Newman's work to be about the influence of Hippocrates on modern medicine. Instead I found just the opposite--HS is a scathing analysis of the multifaceted problems plaguing the current US health care system. Using a myriad of well-explained medical studies and personal anecdotes, Newman poignantly illustrates the key areas where the House of Medicine has drifted away from Hippocrates' ideals. Anyone who has ever spent time at a doctor's office or a hospital can personally attest to many of these issues. What makes Newman's telling so penetrating is that unlike personal experiences, the evidence he uses definitively proves how widespread and common these problems are.

While some of the issues discussed are familiar and easily identifiable (such as doctor's notoriously bad bedside manner), other are much harder to reconcile. Despite the clear evidence Newman gives about the futility of mammograms, in lieu of another screening technique, it is hard to completely abandon that ship. Regardless of how easily we accept each postulate he presents, the overall message conveyed is one that cannot be ignored: our health care system is broken and it is up to everyone (doctors and patients alike) to work together to bring about change.

Like many other Canadians, I could fill a book with my personal experiences with the problems Newman presents. However, unlike most who have faced these same roadblocks, I not only thought about real ways to fix the problems (no, throwing more money is never the right answer), I found out where these solutions were already being used. Despite what conservative medical doctors may like you to think, there is another group of health practitioners out there that still embody the ideals of the Hippocratic Oath, and who had already reconciled their practice with the problems Newman based his book around: naturopaths.

It only took one visit to a naturopath for me to see the impact their different approach makes. A standard first visit is one hour. I don't think I had ever seen a medical doctor for more than 10 minutes at a time. Already Newman's problem of not enough face time is solved. Naturopaths have two other core beliefs that separate their practice from MDs and demonstrate how a new perspective could breath new life into the House of Medicine: focus on prevention and treat the patient as a whole. While these ideal seem simple enough, as Newman's book demonstrates they are frequently neglected by the traditional medical establishment. While neither of these solutions will cost exorbitant amounts of money (unlike investing it in technology to make doctors more "effective"), they do have the potential to rectify the errors that have made our medical system so full of flaws.

In his conclusion, Newman speaks to the need to return to "Hipporates' belief in the bond, his respect for the mind/body, and his patient primacy." To reach this goal, Newman suggests that we look to history, and step back to a time when these three tenets still formed the core of medicine. However, the means he suggests are not required to reach these ends. What Newman fails to realize is that instead of looking to the past, we only needs to look right under our noses and follow the example of naturopathic medicine to heal the wounds currently crippling our public health system.

Wanted on the Voyage

As the title suggests, one of the themes that runs throughout Not Wanted on the Voyage is who was permitted to accompany Noah on the ark. Findley's portrayal of the Biblical fable highlights the absurdity of God's edict that arbitrarily specified who would be saved and who would not. One of the most emotional examples is Noah's attempt to burn Mottyl, the family cat, because God's two cats had already been selected. However, God permitted Noah to take several sheep on board. While the rules are specific in some areas, God also left loopholes, one of which allowed Lucifer to marry Noah's son and thus escape the flood with the family. Apart from the obvious holes this pokes in the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing God (why didn't he just prevent Mottyl from boarding if the edict was so important?), it also leads one to ponder "what would I take on the ark?" What would I want, and not want, on the voyage?

Well, for starters, while I certainly feel that it was noble of Noah to attempt to preserve each animal species, modern science has taught us that multiple members of each species would be required in order to preserve genetic diversity. This makes it nearly impossible to save all of animal kind within the confines of one ark. Although I commend God for being concerned about animals for a change--as opposed to relishing in their sacrificial slaughter--I am also left wondering about the survival of our plants, minerals, and bacteria, not to mention the myriad of art and artifacts that represent our human history. In a magical world (like that of the Bible), I would turn the ark into a Marry Poppins-esque bag, and fit every plant, animal, mineral, single-celled organism, work of art and artifact that I could find. In reality, I would take a very thorough collection of photographs.

Now that our culture and the elements of our earth are accounted for (in one way or another), it is time to consider my personal affairs. Without question I would take my family, friends, pets, and anyone with a skill or ability that would make surviving an extended voyage less dreary. We've all seen the movies where some cataclysmic event is looming over earth and only a select number of people can be saved. Typically some bureaucrat chooses three types of people: those with money, those whose work is essential to human survival, and those with luck. If I was in charge, I would require everyone to audition and only select those who are creative and I could get along with--I have no desire to be trapped on an ark with an obnoxious know-it-all no matter how smart they are! As for bribes, what use would money be after the whole world is submerged under the waters of God's fury anyway?

Last but not least, my things. For better or worse, there are certain inanimate objects that I would have trouble parting with for the rest of my life, and that I would simply be bored to tears without. First, flood or no flood, I want a high speed internet connection. I don't care how the techies do it, but this is a must. I might no longer need to use the internet to communicate with others (since we are all in one ark), but lets face it, everyone has e-talked to someone in the same room at one point or another. Second, my comfort items--those things that due to sentimental value bring me joy, happiness, and peace. Third, entertainment: Xbox, boardgames, music, videos, you name it. I don't plan on watching the water for however long it takes God to get over his issues. But when the rains stop, and the sun comes out again, it will be time to sit on the deck in a comfy lounge chair and enjoy the final thing I want on my voyage--a really big stack of books.

An Atheist's Pilgrimage

Having grown up in a small, predominantly Catholic community, I was not exposed to any other creeds or religious beliefs early on in life. To this day I can still remember how shocked I was when I was first introduced to the Big Bang theory. Although I did not know it at the time, this moment put me on an ideological pilgrimage that over many years would help me define the governing principles of my adult life. I had at last been exposed to a sort of atheist Mecca--a place where logic and reason and critical thinking could reign supreme over the falsehood and lies that are religion.

As I grew up, and began to think more critically of the world around me, I slowly started to reject the preachings of the church. While it was at times difficult to give up the comfort that undoubtedly came from recognizing a higher power, I learned that ultimately truth is the greater reward. Just like the realization that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not the ones bringing presents and chocolate, abandoning my belief in the stories of the Bible meant giving up a faith my parents had instilled in me since birth.

I liken my experience to that of Plato's Philosopher King who leaves the cave of ignorance and finally sees the light of truth. Although there was a certain comfort in the cave, and the journey to the surface was an ideological struggle, getting there has been well worth the effort. Not only have I been able to remove the veil of religious ignorance, but the process of self-enlightenment has also sharpened my analytical skills. Free from the ideological control of an overbearing religious dictatorship, my mind was both free to think for itself, and in possession of the tools to do so.

The world may never agree that religion is in essence an archaic mythology, that while purposeful in the past, has long overstayed its welcome. However, this bleak prospect should not discourage others from embarking on their own intellectual pilgrimage and coming to terms with the realities of the world they live in.