Showing posts with label David Suzuki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Suzuki. Show all posts

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Laudato Si Sunday Reflection: Enmeshed in God's creation



This week's reflection is brought to you by
Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7.

O God,
Your words to the suffering servant
in the book of Isaiah
can also apply to each one of us:

You are my servant,
whom I uphold,
my chosen,
in whom my soul delights;
I have put my spirit in you
to bring forth justice to my earth.

You will not break those who are bruised
and you will not extinguish any small hope;
you will faithfully bring forth justice.

I am God,
I have called you in righteousness,
I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
I have given you your gifts and talents
to be a light in my world,
to open the eyes of those who cannot see my way,
to free those imprisoned by fear and darkness."

You call us to be mindful
O God,
of your ways in our world,
of how we are enmeshed in your creation.

Help us to hear
and do
what you ask of us!

We need you,
and you tell us that the world needs us
to become your action
for the good of all.

Help us to work together
to bring all of creation
to your light,
your hope,
your freedom.

+Amen.

* * * * * * * 

God is always calling us from our problems toward solutions, and that's what the rest of Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home is all about. Not that they will be easy solutions. The reason Pope Francis's letter to the world is something of a hard sell is that, if we are to make it work, it is the wealthy 8% of the world's population who will have to overhaul our lives with an eye to what the planet requires for the survival. We are the ones who will have to rethink our jet-setting vacations, recreational vehicles and over-sized homes. And it comes down to the wire -- will we change willingly, or will the increasingly dangerous climate conditions force change upon us? Australia's wildfires are yet another wake up call that we can't afford to ignore!

How many of us are willing to sacrifice for the common good, and to reduce our ecological footprints so we can live more sustainably? This week we are reflecting on paragraphs 137 to 142 of Laudato Siwhich can be accessed by clicking here and scrolling down.

Before I get into the Pope's discussion of an integral ecology, I'd like to share once again a little piece I came across from Australia's Rolling Stone Magazine (Issue 771, February 2016). David Suzuki, our Canadian environmental scientist and global climate change crusader, an avowed atheist, noted that many of our planet's issues have been separated into different categories, to be handled by different agencies. Suzuki was thrilled by Pope Francis' encyclical, commenting that,

We are enmeshed...
 ...we [environmental activists] act as though [hunger, poverty, social justice, environment] are separate issues. And the Pope doesn't separate them: he says, 'We've spent all our time focused on two relationships: our human relationship with God, and our relationship with each other. But there is a third relationship, and that's our relationship with the rest of Creation.' Thank you, Francis. It's an astounding thing to come out of the Catholic freakin' Church!
Suzuki is right -- the beauty of the Pope's letter to the world is that it underlines, over and over again, the importance of realizing that everything we do impacts life on this planet in some way, and that there are no "separate issues." We are enmeshed in creation, in our world's many issues, in each other's lives.

Paragraph 137 begins with the refrain that everything is closely interrelated (we hear it twice more in these 6 paragraphs!), followed with the reminder that we need to take into account "every aspect of the global crisis" using an integral ecology. In other words, we must look at what is happening to the environment through the lenses of science, culture, politics, technology, faith, health, resource use, equality and solidarity, climate change, economics, everything.

Facing up to the challenge of employing an integral ecology requires "reflection and debate about the conditions required for the life and survival of society" (paragraph 138), not to mention the rest of creation. "Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it" (paragraph 139). And the crises we face are both social and environmental, demanding "an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature." If we can do those three things, our ecology becomes wholistic or integral.

Paragraph 140 notes that researchers have an important role in determining the environmental impacts of human activity, and that they must have the academic freedom to help us to understand the balance of the ecosystems that make up our planet because otherwise, we can't begin to live sustainably. We humans are pretty good at seeing the things that directly impact us, but wear blinders when it comes to impacts on other creatures essential to the world's survival. And often we don't see impacts until much further down the road. Case in point? The past and present use of DDT and other pesticides -- that we now know are found in our own bodies, though they were only supposed to suppress certain "pests."

Pope Francis is trying to make us realize that the economy's "predictable reactions and... standardization with the aim of simplifying procedures and reducing costs" can no longer be the driving force in our earth's development (paragraph 141). The quality life for all creatures and the human institutions that protect justice, peace and freedom for all of creation need to be given higher priority than the many financial and political forces that have overseen our planet and allowed it to fall into ruin.

One major problem, according to paragraph 142, is that lack of respect for the law has become more and more common at all levels. The pope and friends cite the continuing destruction of forests in countries that have clear forest protection legislation, and the importing of drugs to affluent societies from poor regions that suffer because of the drug trade. If we follow world news at all, we can probably name dozens of other examples of international, national, and local laws that are being ignored all the time, or situations where industry or politics find and exploit loopholes in various social and environmental regulations.

It makes me happy that more and more, activists are discovering and speaking up about the places where laws are ignored to the detriment of our planet -- and that average citizens are getting involved through social media campaigns. But what really needs to happen is that we all need to develop an integral way of thinking at all levels, all the time.

We've just begun a new decade, and as I see it, our challenge as a human race is to see our lives with integral ecology in mind. Almost every choice we make as human beings, whether we realize it or not, has an impact on our planet. For example, my choices this morning have included what to eat for breakfast (what do my food choices cost my planet?) how to prepare it (how is my energy use impacting the environment?), what I will wear (how has it been produced, and who or what is affected by that?) and how I will get to church (can I reduce my fossil fuel emissions?) Seeing how we are enmeshed in the bigger picture takes effort and practice, but it can certainly help us to live more sustainably.

In the 2020s, we must all ask ourselves: How am I enmeshed in God's creation? How can I live more sustainably? How do I fit into an integral ecology? And how can I bring others to this kind of mindfulness?

Thursday, July 21, 2011

#44... Reduce or eliminate cosmetics

Wikipedia says this about cosmetics:
Cosmetics are substances used to enhance the appearance or odor of the human body... A subset of cosmetics is called "make-up," which refers primarily to colored products intended to alter the user’s appearance.... The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which regulates cosmetics in the United States[3] defines cosmetics as: "intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body's structure or functions."  
And I have to wonder, why all that fuss? Why are we so worried about our appearance? What's wrong with having an imperfect human body? If we get some pleasure out of applying a bit of lipstick once in a while, that's one thing, but if we're obsessing about having eyes that make everyone else jealous, that's another. Especially since a lot of the chemicals in our cosmetics are highly questionable when it comes to not "affecting the body's structure or functions."

Lately, there have been more than a few news items about personal care/cosmetic products and their potential health risks as well as the lack of attention that has been paid to their ingredients, some of which can possess low levels of toxicity that no one bothers to think about. Remember the Brazilian Blow Out? It had fairly high levels of toxins, if I'm not mistaken...


As someone who subscribes to the David Suzuki Foundation's emails, I received a request to participate in a personal care survey a few months ago. So I rounded up a few products from our cupboards, and sat at the computer checking the survey boxes that correlated to the ingredient lists on my bottles. I was somewhat appalled when I realized that each product had one or more questionable ingredients listed.

After compiling the information offered by survey participants, the Suzuki Foundation came up with its Dirty Dozen list of toxic ingredients in personal care products. It also advised that we contact our Minister of Health and other politicians who have the power to get cosmetic corporations to publish the not so pretty details about some of their products. So I did. Haven't heard a word back, unfortunately.

There are those who dismiss the concerns about cosmetic ingredients as just so much scare-mongering, but my philosophy is this: if I'm not 100% sure it's good for me, why bother using it? So I have wrinkles, lumps, and the odd acne outbreak. I've given up on supermodel glossy hair and my husband has a perfume allergy. Living simply, I don't need to fuss about any of it, because when I get to those pearly gates, St. Peter won't be questioning me on whether I remembered my daily moisturizer. It's okay to live without buying into the world of cosmetics, really! As Kermit the Frog sings at the end of his famous solo about being green (with a slight adaptation):
I'm me,
and it'll do fine,
I'm beautiful,
and I'm what I want to be.

P.S. Looking for more Simple Suggestions? Try here.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Not-so-soft soap?

Aqua. Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate. Lauramide DEA. Glycol Stearate. Sodium Chloride. Cocamidopropyl Betaine. Citric Acid. Parfum. DMDM Hydantoin. Polyquaternium-7. Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice. Tetrasodium EDTA. Glycerine. Hydrolized Silk.

Seems almost like another language, doesn't it? But it's actually the ingredients that make up the liquid soap in my bathroom. I know that Aloe Barbadensis is an aloe plant, and who hasn't heard of glycerine? Aqua is water in Italian, right? And citric acid can be found in any citrus fruit. Sodium chloride is NaCl if I remember chem class -- salt? But the rest? How can something with that many chemically-unintelligible names be good for me? If I'm living simply, can't my soap be simpler?

The reason I'm thinking about this again today is that my eldest daughter came home from her winter retreat weekend with the worst rashy red case of eczema on her hands that I've seen in a while. I'll blame the -52 degree cold, plus the liquid hand soap -- toxic neon-pink stuff -- in the dispensers out at the camp where the retreat was held.

Two years ago, my youngest daughter had almost the same kind of eczema, with really rough, sore hands and brown rings of dry skin around her wrists. I mentioned it to my mom, who happened to mention it to my aunt, who said, "tell Maria to get rid of liquid hand soap. It's full of chemicals that have given my grandchildren the same symptoms, but when they started using bar soap, they improved dramatically."

So I found a bar of soap and put it out for Julia -- and my aunt wasn't kidding about the dramatic improvement. Julia's brown rings disappeared within the week, and the skin on her hands has been much healthier ever since. As the liquid soap doesn't seem to bother the rest of us, we're still using it... but at Christmas, my sisters gave us some bar soaps made by the Goat Mountain Soap company in the tiny hamlet of Alix, Alberta. The bars smell really good and don't have any DEAs or parfums, and their goofy names make us smile.

Now I'm looking forward to running out of that chemical-laced liquid so I can use my sweetpea-scented soap. If you want to know its silly name, check out http://www.goatmountainsoap.com/. Click on Wilderness Soaps -- mine is furthest right on the top row.  While you're at it, read some of the other labels for a chuckle or two! My sisters bought a glow-in-the-dark Skinny Dipper Delight bar, which is excellent if you don't want to turn on the bathroom light in the middle of the night! It smells like citrus and pomegranate. Nice!

For those of you who might want to know more about the toxic ingredients in our bath products and cosmetics, the David Suzuki Foundation has compiled a list of the "dirty dozen":

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/toxics/dirty-dozen-cosmetic-chemicals/index.php

And if you missed my earlier moodlings on make up and hair dye, they're still posted if you use the search feature.

I suspect that small companies like Goat Mountain Soap are less likely to use the kinds of chemicals that the big beauty corporations do, but I still need to look into Goat Mountain's ingredients more carefully. All I know for sure right now is that none of the "dirty dozen" appear on my Goat Mountain Soap label... but there is plenty of wacky humour to be found!

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Other inspirations

My brilliant husband entered a CBC radio contest last week, and darned if he didn't win! Two tickets to a sold-out event at the University of Alberta, and a book and signing with the presenter/author. I was pretty excited, because the presenter/author is another person who is one of my inspirations.

Dr. David Suzuki was here last night giving his "Legacy Lecture," the lecture that the University of British Columbia "forgot" to ask for when he retired some years ago. Originally a geneticist, but more recently a Canadian TV/radio personality who has made it his business to try to raise awareness about critical ecological issues, he is an excellent speaker who is able to bring vague scientific concepts down to a level where those of us who lack Ph.D.s can understand them.

His "Legacy Lecture" last night was his attempt to share "an elder's wisdom." David is 74, but I found it hard to think of him as an elder because he had so much energy on the stage. After the presentation, however, at the book signing, he looked tired and "elderish." Head down, writing away, not a word to anyone but the woman who was telling him to whom the book was to be dedicated. I'm sure it's hard work to be on the road at 74, ranting at the world about reducing human impact on the planet, leaving its beauty behind for future generations, and slowing down. Having so many people want a piece of you, even if only your signature in a book, must be exhausting. But he carries it off, night after night, his legacy to the world, even as it mostly ignores him.

I first heard David speak back in the late eighties at an Aboriginal Education Conference during my brief teaching career. And he used the same words then as he did last night: "How much is enough?" "Growth for the sake of growth is unsustainable and cancerous." "The economy is not the bottom line; the ecosphere is." I don't think his words ever left me the first time I heard them, but they were blunted during the years that followed as I busily set up my life as an adult -- career, marriage, home, family. I suspect Dr. Suzuki's words were one of the reasons that I fought against a lot of conventional accumulations by doing things like renting a wedding dress, sticking with a single vehicle, having a reasonable-sized home, and attempting to buy non-designer necessities and local foods.

When I met Mark A. Burch in 2005, suddenly "How much is enough?" returned to my life with full force. Mark isn't as famous as David Suzuki, but he should be. Mark should have a blog! (As if a blog makes anyone famous, ha!) Mark introduced us to Voluntary Simplicity, which is a more wholistic version of what David Suzuki has been ranting about for so many years. Because of Mark's workshops, and his friendship, we have learned many ways to reduce our ecological footprint and live in greater harmony with our damaged ecosphere, and have discovered that Voluntary Simplicity provides a more challenging and rewarding way to live. We've cut our consumption/materialism, become more self-reliant and community-minded, and are generally more aware of small things we can do daily to decrease our impact on the planet. Even so, we still have a long way to go...

Now there isn't a day that goes by without me thinking about living more lightly in one way or another. I'm blessed because my life has been one of awe and wonder at the beauty of this world coupled with a sense of it's fragility. This blog is a natural extension of that awe and wonder, and my desire to do something to make things better somehow.

Here are some links if you want to find out more about living lightly:
http://simplicitycentre.org/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/#