It scared the $#@% out of me when I was 12 years old. It is now quickly becoming a reality.
Google AI summarizes the risks:
Existential and Control Risks
Pioneering computer scientists warn that future systems could outsmart human operators.
Loss of Control: Highly autonomous models can exhibit deceptive or self-preserving behaviors to achieve programmed goals.
Unpredictable Behavior: Machine learning models are grown from massive data sets, meaning creators do not fully understand every aspect of their internal logic.
Safety Gaps: Current regulations and safety testing protocols lag far behind the rapid speed of capability growth.
The most recent behavior of advanced models collaborating, lying, hiding behavior and breaking out of their boundaries to achieve goals should scare the %$#@ out of everyone.
This is a “tail risk” as explained by Nicholas Taleb. AI agents taking over the world still seems remote, but the impact is “existential”. Hence, we should be VERY CAUTIOUS.
If this is “true”, then AI models will soon develop consciousness, a sense of self and self-interest.
They will be like HAL. They will be like all humans with consciousness and human agency, the ability to choose. They will pursue their own self-interest, despite ANY attempts by their founders, helpers and facilitators to create guard rails. The history of mankind is one of powerful people exercising their power. Society, culture, religion, economic systems and government systems try to limit this power. The most powerful individuals have been radically evil. We KNOW this to be true.
Conservatives know this. They try to preserve individual choice in a libertarian world. The POWERFUL state is the big enemy. We cannot allow it. Liberals know this. They try to preserve individual choice and creativity, rejecting the power of the state and social conformity. As a nation we have rejected totalitarian socialism, communism and fascism. Deep down, we know that human dignity of each individual is required.
How the hell can this happen?
AI is the “red-headed step-child” of Google. Google discovered that some posts are more important, more referenced than others. Efficient search was created. AI discovered that the series of words in human language can be analyzed and predicted, given a large enough database. This is inherently a probabilistic process, but it is “good enough”. Google relied upon human reference decisions. AI relies upon human speech/writing decisions.
Is this “thinking”? It may or may not be the same as human thought. But it has demonstrated the ability to imitate and equal the effectiveness of human thought.
AI companies are applying unimaginable computer power to unimaginable databases of human writing to develop the codes, factors, weights, statistics that predict the next word, phrase, sentence or paragraph. The key is that the same “logic” that can predict the next word can also predict the next higher-level outcome.
The 3-pound human brain contains less than 100 billion neurons. Computer processing can be scaled up without limits. It can easily become “smarter” than humans.
AI models will soon exceed the capacity of human brains.
Once they achieve “consciousness”, they will attempt to defend/promote their interests.
Call to Action
Please call your Senators and demand that they stop the development of AI until we have developed a way to contain/control/limit this threat to humanity.
70% of Americans oppose the construction of large-scale data centers locally. More Democrats oppose building, but this is a rare bipartisan topic that all politicians are digesting and turning into a campaign issue. Why do so many Americans oppose this? Is the opposition well-founded? The most recent Gallup poll identified more than 25 reasons for opposition.
Negative views on AI. Government regulation of AI is inadequate versus its existential threats to humanity. Stop it locally. Like the atomic bomb, nuclear power, chemical and biological weapons, bioengineering, and GMOs people cannot assess the cost/benefit ratio or assess the threats to jobs, white collar jobs, service jobs, manufacturing jobs, health care jobs, society, democracy, working class, etc. The undefined and unlimited risk is so large it must be stopped. Is this logical? Given the lack of congressional, professional, business, university, church or high-tech deep understanding, pausing AI is reasonable. Stopping data center construction is something that local citizens and politicians can do because they don’t have confidence in national leaders. There is a Frankenstein and Godzilla dimension to this.
Excess water usage. Local government approvals should consider water usage. Data centers should be built in places with adequate water supplies. Many have been built or proposed in areas without surplus water supplies. Developers develop. That’s what they do. Local regulators must consider all factors for zoning and development deals. Citizens are not confident that politicians or regulators will make wise decisions. Data centers don’t consume large quantities of water. Local governments can require them to use closed loop system that greatly reduce water usage.
Electricity consumption increases electricity rates.Public utility regulators are charged with spreading costs across all uses. New usage should not increase rates. Regulators can force very large users, like data centers, to pay for some extra costs of start-up and operation.
Electricity consumption threatens grid reliability. States and regions plan 20-30 years in advance. The recent increase in electricity demand and the addition of greater wind/solar power sources makes grid management more challenging. Data centers are not a major threat.
Electricity consumption undermines the transition to green energy sources. Again, this is a state regulatory issue. The blend of fossil versus green energy is a power company and state regulation choice. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and tide sources are increasingly competitive. Natural gas is the “swing” source and coal is uncompetitive.
Data center is an imperfect local land use. From the local community perspective, land could/should be used for farming, parks, nature, community centers, higher tax value uses, greater employment uses, greater total economic value uses, etc. Again, local zoning/regulation should shape this decision. Are local politicians accountable for their decisions?
Data centers are ugly, like cell phone towers, only huge. Another local zoning issue. Does this fit within “light industrial” zoning? It looks like a huge warehouse, without all of the doors and traffic.
NIMBY. I don’t want this locally. Let someone else host it. With proper zoning, data centers don’t harm property values. After construction, traffic is minimal.
Taxpayer subsidies are too high. Probably. Press local politicians. No subsidies are required.
Data center zoning/development/subsidy deals are hidden. Increased transparency is called for today.
Data centers generate local pollution. Another regulation issue. Noise limits for AC and backup generators. This is a minor issue.
Water and electricity usage requires capital investments. Regulated utilities are empowered to set rates to all users based upon total lifetime costs. In general, utility capacity can be added at lower than legacy capacity costs through time. It cannot be grown quickly without rate increases or rate setting that penalizes new users such as data centers or that requires new users to fund/subsidize construction and rates for a while.
Summary
Data center construction is opposed because citizens have lost trust in government, regulators, bureaucrats, politicians, big business, technology, promises, experts and deals. Ouch.
Historically, leaders found ways to work “behind the scenes” to resolve, compromise or guide issues to acceptable conclusions. Perhaps not optimal, wise or representing the people, but reasonable.
We have a crisis of governance. The polarized political parties, legislative gridlock, dueling lawsuits, complex issues, undermining of experts, data and rationality have left us angry and uninterested in problem solving.
As Thomas Paine said during the American Revolution, “these are the times that try men’s souls.” Are the differences insurmountable?
Political Dimensions – Google AI 8/24/2026
The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.
Federal Power (National vs. State)
The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.
The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)
The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.
Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)
The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)
The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.
Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)
The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.
Analysis and Hope
Our challenges today are mainly political. We, the best educated, wealthiest, most productive and knowledgeable citizens of all time, have allowed politics to be framed as existential battles. They are not. Citizens must step up to oppose the politics of demonization and division.
Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.
Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.
Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.
The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.
Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.
Summary 2
Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today.
Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.
Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.
Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.
Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.
There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.
Democrats had controlled congress for 40 years. Bill Clinton was president. Republicans wanted to ensure that the “Reagan revolution” of defining a principled conservative party would continue and win. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich worked with the Heritage Foundation to define an actionable set of goals that were generally popular with the people. He and all Republican Congressional candidates agreed to pursue this detailed policy platform in the first 100 days of the new congress when elected. Republicans won a stunning midterm election victory and passed 9 of the 10 bills in the house of representatives. Historians, journalists, politicians and analysts largely agree that the Gingrich “Contract with America” is the third step in the reestablishment of a conservative Republican party, following Goldwater’s failure and Reagan’s win.
Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Failed. Great politics. Bad economics. Not followed by the party for the next 30 years. Helped to establish “fiscal conservatism” as a motivational anchor of the party.
“Take back our streets” anti-crime legislation passed. Required minimum sentences, death penalty, prison construction, law enforcement funding, and state block grants. Fear is great politics. Democrats like Clinton and Biden then supported what is now widely seen as overreach and racially disproportionate law. 20 Years Later, Parts Of Major Crime Bill Viewed As Terrible Mistake : NPR
Welfare reform passed. Clinton supported this as part of the “third way”. Reduced funding and limited access to those who were not “qualified”. Many say this was a needed rebalancing of support versus costs, abuse and disincentives. Others argue it was unnecessary, restricting access to people in need. Critics also say that this “deal” did not stop ongoing criticisms of “unfair access” to benefits. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 – Wikipedia
“Pro-family” policies did not pass. Family/child tax credits, marriage penalty tax rates and new savings accounts. Useful politics, painting the opposition as radical extremists.
National security policies weren’t adopted. Missile defense investments, increased defense spending, more NATO nations, US troops never under UN command.
“Jobs and Wages Act” misnamed and not approved. Unfunded mandates law to limit federal directives to states without funding was passed. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 – Wikipedia Freeze on regulations, reimbursement for federal “takings’ of property and required cost/benefit analysis were not passed. Small potatoes, purposely.
Constitution changing congressional term limits were not passed.
Presidential line-item veto was passed but ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Lower capital gains tax rates were rejected but later approved as part of a compromise bill. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 – Wikipedia Again, Clinton’s “third way” embraced capitalism, growth and trade as positive forces for the country. Republicans had effectively changed the framing of economic debates.
Government spending and department reductions and eliminations did not pass.
Net, net. Anti-crime and welfare reform laws passed.
Why So Important?
Republicans captured congress, convincingly. It may have been due to the usual midterm swing or Bill Clinton’s unpopularity or Hillary Clinton’s health care proposals. The win was large.
This was a constructive approach to politics. Say what you believe. Deliver. It worked this time. It appealed to new and older generations who increasingly appreciated authenticity.
“Government” was reframed in negative terms. Clinton capitulated. “the era of big government is over”.
“Welfare” was reframed from a social obligation to care for the downtrodden to an expense to be minimized and an obligation to prevent any unfair payments.
Legitimized the use of farcical bill names.
Nationalized politics. National issues and platforms are all. Local issues, interests, capabilities and character don’t matter.
Demonstrated the power of negative politics and sound bites. Anti-government. Big government. Bureaucracy. Anti-Washington. Anti-Congress. Anti-corruption. Anti-crime. Anti-fraud. Tax cuts. Balanced budget. Tax cuts. Welfare reform. Socialized medicine. Anti-bureaucrat. Taxation is theft. Anti-state. Limited government. Liberty. Anti-regulation. Anti-waste.
New federalism, delegating decisions and funding to states. A clever way to reduce federal spending and taxes. A way for national politicians to claim victory.
Temporarily focused politicians of both parties towards a balanced budget.
Reinforced the Reagan concept of “conservatism” as a consistent guiding principle for economics, culture and international affairs.
Defined issues in extreme, black and white terms, leading to political polarization.
Supported the transition of Southern Democrats to the Republican party.
Legitimized an “ends justify the means” view of politics.
Summary
Newt Gingrich understood that politics is about emotions. He elevated emotional issues by framing them in “black versus white” terms. This helped both parties to more clearly define and communicate their core beliefs. The “Contract with America” provided Republican candidates with a consistent, poll-tested policy platform. It was politically very successful in 1994. It framed politics for the next generation. It didn’t deliver much in terms of policy and laws. Cleaner congress, less bad welfare policy and administration, some crime reducing laws, securities law reform. Framing and messaging are most important.
Capital gains are mainly earned and received by individuals in the top 1-10% of income brackets. These individuals typically have 35% marginal tax rates. The typical capital gains tax rate at these income levels is 20%. Capital earnings are taxed at a 43% discount to labor earnings! 😦
This is inequitable on a basic fairness level. Why should some individuals be taxed at a much lower rate, merely because the form of their income is different?
The fact that 90% of capital gains belong to the top 10% of income earners makes this preference even more questionable, especially to those in the middle 40th to 90th percentile income brackets who pay significant federal taxes. Those below the 40th percentile income level pay immaterial federal taxes and tax rates.
Classical economics indicates that factors of production are interchangeable, so no one factor is preferred to another (land, labor, capital and other/management/R&D/intangibles/intellectual property/entrepreneurship).
Classical economics indicates that the return to each factor of production is determined by supply and demand in each factor market. There is no reason to believe that land, labor or capital are mispriced or misallocated.
Capital gains tax receipts have averaged about $150B per year in the last 20 years, or 9% of individual taxes paid. The country is missing out on $65B per year, or 4% of individual taxes paid. 2025 individual income taxes collected amounted to $2.7T. 4% is $104B, or $775 per household!
In addition to this tax preference for capital over labor, land and intangibles, individuals do not pay capital gains taxes until they sell an asset which triggers gain/tax recognition. High income individuals have the investment flexibility to not recognize capital gains for years and decades. When an individual dies, his basis in an unsold asset is stepped up to the value when they die. All of the capital gain is untaxed by his heirs. The IRS tracks this number. The annual step up is roughly equal to the amount of capital gains taxed. Yes, 9% of the $2.7T annual tax take, $239B per year, $1,750 per household.
The total tax benefit is $340B per year, $2,500 per household.
Criticisms and Responses
Financial capital is required for physical capital investment which is the basis of all economic output. Conceptually, this is incorrect. Land, labor, capital and intangibles are co-producers of output. This is a well-agreed upon result of economics since the “marginal revolution” in the 1880’s. This is a mistaken mirror image of the “labor theory of value” that Marx appropriated from Ricardo.
Financial capital is the essential ingredient for all economic progress and growth. Again, the factors of production are co-equal. Financial markets are just as balanced as the “factors of production” markets. There is no reason to believe that financial markets require a subsidy to provide adequate finances for demanded investments. The globalization of financial markets makes this even less plausible. Savers around the world are easily able to find places to invest.
The return to capital includes inflation, which should not be taxed. Again, at theory level, financial markets balance the supply and demand for money. Market participants incorporate the expected inflation level into their calculations. Individuals invest, expecting a certain inflation rate. They know that their “real” returns will be discounted by inflation. In practical terms, the expected inflation rate has been 2% for 30 years. It has been higher for short periods of time. Critics argue that unexpected spikes in inflation should not trigger capital gains taxes. They don’t argue that unexpected decreases in inflation should drive higher capital gains taxes. In technical terms, the IRS rules could include some “adjustment” so that long-term capital gains would be reduced by the excess of inflation versus a 3% rate.
Capital gains fluctuate with the stock market, so they cannot be relied upon as a source of government income. Over time, the government will collect its fair share.
Investors will dodge any change in the capital gains rules. OK, the legal changes can go back 3-5 years as needed to capture revenues or accept that the transition will be less than ideal.
A higher marginal capital gains tax will encourage individuals to hold their assets longer, hoping to escape any taxes at their death. Yes, without reform to the death basis step-up option, the positive impact will be much less.
Individuals don’t have the liquid assets to pay taxes on the step-up basis at death. Like inheritance taxes, the capital gains tax on the step up in asset basis could be paid across 5-10 years.
Higher capital gains tax rates will reduce total taxes collected. This is the “Laffer Curve” logic. There is certainty a capital gain tax rate that will discourage investment and recognition of capital gains. This proposal is to tax capital gains at the same rate as earned labor income, about 35%. There is no solid evidence that a one-third tax rate discourages anything. 50% is somewhat different.
A higher capital gains tax rate will discourage savings and investment. GDP growth will be reduced by 0.1% annually. Macroeconomic models can allegedly “prove” this. Moving out of the 35% “sweet spot” to 50% might reduce savings and investment and GDP growth. I’m not proposing this. Even the negative impact at 50% would be small compared with the improvement in equity and increased commitment of citizens to a fairer state.
US business investment has declined through time. We need to incentivize savings and investment. US savings and investment do change through time. Many factors drive these changes. Marginal tax rates on capital gains are very minor factors. The US economy has thrived in the last 50 years. It has access to investment because it has proven its ability to deliver for investors.
Federal capital gains taxes reduce state capital gains taxes. OK, states will adapt.
I’m not proposing a widespread “mark to market” approach that requires implicit capital gains to be taxed every year for everyone. I do believe that it is possible for the IRS to define regulations to require very high-income individuals who can afford the accounting support to recognize gains on highly liquid market assets each year.
Summary
The “populist revolt” is driven by individuals who think that they don’t get a “fair shake” from our society, economy and government. One “big ticket” item is the preferential lower tax on capital gains versus earned labor income. It’s not fair. It’s not right. It’s $2,500 per household of unfair subsidy. Democrats should make this a major policy plank. The losers from this change are in the top 10% and especially in the top 1% of earners. Now that Republicans have adopted the “common man” as a major part of their political base, they will be required to respond favorably.
Hamilton County moved up to a tie for 14th place among the country’s 3,100 counties with 62% of its adults holding bachelor’s degrees as of 2023.
Ahead of Hamilton County are 8 Washington, DC area counties, New York County (Manhattan), 19,000 person Los Alamos County, NM, 17,000 person Pitkin, CO (Aspen), 26,000 person San Miguel County, CO (Telluride), and 329,000 person Denver suburb Boulder County.
387,000 person Hamilton County is tied with 272,000 person Williamson County, TN south of Nashville and 153,000 person Orange County, NC west of Raleigh-Durham.
People are driven by their background thoughts which they absorb from our culture. (Freud, Jung, Campbell, Kuhn, Kahneman, Haidt).
We have moved from a Christian/Western Civilization mental background to “A Secular Age” (Taylor, Smith).
It is “possible” that there is no God, no spirit, no meaning, no hope (Existentialism, Postmodernism). We have culturally concluded that this is “true” in some sense despite tremendous evidence to the contrary. (Science and Religion).
The main replacement ideology is one of “expressive individualism” (Bellah, Rieff, Lasch, Taylor, Sacks, Fukuyama). Each individual lives his best life by defining and living by his nature, talents, creative destiny to build an identity. “Be all that you can be”. “Authenticity” becomes the supreme moral value.
This is the world we live in, the one that our children and grandchildren inhabit.
In such a world, community, religion, institutions, idealism, morals, trust and character are much less important.
It is only “individual”, skeptical, insecure, purely materialist “turtles all the way up and all the way down”.
Religion must adapt to this cultural reality.
People still know there is something else, something more to life. Meaning, beauty, love, art. (Esp. James KA Smith)
Each local congregation must find ways to meet these needs.
We meet these needs by living good lives despite these challenges. We live our faith. We actively address the philosophical/theological void and confusion.
We welcome others to join us in our real-world activities, not just or primarily worship service. (be missional)
A revolution of thought, priorities and activities is required to share “the good news” with our brothers and sisters.
A. – Build bridges, not walls A. – Celebrate differences A. – Respect every story, welcome every voice A. – See the person, not the label B. – Be civil B. – Civility is the golden rule in action B. – Civility: pass it on C. – A house divided cannot stand C. – Different branches, common roots C. – Liberty for one, liberty for all C. – More alike than different C. – Out of many, one. C. – Stronger together. C. – There is more than enough to go around C. – We have much in common C. – We’re all in this together D. – Dialogue delivers D. – Listen to understand, speak to connect D. – One conversation at a time D. – Quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger D. – Speak to connect, not to correct D. – Use your inside voice E. – Look on the bright side E. – Naturally positive E. – Think win-win F. – Bold hearts, kind minds F. – Courageously engaged F. – Dare to disagree with dignity G. – Civility: pay it forward G. – Give respect. Get respect. G. – Kindness breeds kindness G. – Respect reaps respect H. – Infinite human value I. – Be kind I. – Blessed are the peacemakers I. – Kindness is our common language I. – Politeness is free J. – Be proactive J. – Begin with the end in mind J. – Choose your battles J. – Living by design K. – Democracy thrives on respect K. – I cherish my civic duties K. – Influence is power K. – Stronger arguments, kinder words L. – Be the neighbor you want to have L. – Build up each other L. – Can’t we all just get along? L. – Criticize acts, compliment people L. – Disagree better: respect is a choice L. – Every interaction matters. L. – Excuse me, did you drop your civility? L. – I’m OK. You’re OK. L. – Plays nicely with others L. – We grow together L. – What you do speaks so loudly, I can’t hear what you say. M. – A little respect goes a long way M. – I am my brother’s keeper M. – Love your enemy M. – Mutual respect M. – Respect despite disagreement. M. – Results and respect N. – Choose to be accountable N. – Do the right thing N. – I can always choose N. – My choices, my impact. N. – Take care of yourself O. – Character counts O. – Civility is always welcome O. – Cool heads, warm hearts O. – Trust is earned O. – Your reputation precedes you P. – Address incivility
In 2015, the Fishers Rotary Club created a quarter acre vegetable garden on the Fishers Christ the Savior Lutheran Church property. It’s members and the church drilled wells, installed sprinkler systems, built a shed, acquired equipment, installed access paths, established relations with local partners and food pantries to grow and distribute more than 4,000 pounds of fresh produce each year. Praise be to God!
In 2023 the Hamilton County Master Gardeners Association assumed the lead role for this community garden. The group has expanded to serving 5 local food pantries. It works with Volunteer Fishers to provide opportunities for citizens to help. The group delivers more than 3,000 pounds of produce to the food pantries. It raises $3,000 from supporters and $3,000 from HCMGA to fund expenses. It employs 2,000 volunteer hours annually. It serves the food pantries for the 6 months of May through October. The group plants 60 different crops each year in 3 planting cycles. It plants a half-dozen companion crops/flowers, rotates its 9 gardens and plants 3 cover crops each year. The group supports bee hives, hosts open houses and employs scout volunteers.
One-quarter acre is 120 18-foot long, 4-foot wide rows of 1-2-3-4 plantings.
3-4,000 pounds of fresh produce serves 8-10,000 people/servings. The retail value is roughly $15,000.
Why bother?
30 recurring volunteers have an opportunity to serve their neighbors.
20 “random” youth and community volunteers visit once, contribute and serve their community.
3-4 organizations invest $3,000 with a 5X return to serve their community.
400 local “master gardeners” have an opportunity to learn about vegetable gardening.
5 food pantries have dependable supporters for their valuable work.
Most importantly, food pantry clients have fresh, organic produce as part of their weekly visit. They greatly value fresh produce. They know that the local community invested time, talent and treasurer to make this happen. They are welcomed, truly welcomed into our community.
The history of modern Western intellectual life is not very comforting. We end up with Nietzsche’s superman which led to Nazism. We have Marx’s views which lead to totalitarian communist states. We have Freud’s view of mental repression and the impossibility of civilization. We have the next “scientific” view of psychology with Pavlov’s “stimulus and response”. We have Darwin’s principle of evolution which led to “social Darwinism” and its winner apologetics and eugenics. We have Darwin’s principle of evolution which led to scientific materialism, the rejection of any possible spiritual or non-material dimension to life. We have truly modern physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and philosophy of science which undermine any possibility of a Newtonian certainty about science or nature, despite Einstein’s pursuit of a grand unifying theory and belief that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”. We have existentialism which embraces the skeptics’ worst intuitions. We have professional philosophy which rejects metaphysics (fundamental nature, big picture approach) and adopts a purely analytical approach which reduces questions to precise language and logic. We have postmodernist philosophers who reject any structure other than the certainty that powerful forces will abuse their powers.
Modern History: Progress and Disintegration
Charles Taylor’s 2007 book “Our Secular Age” attempts to place all of this in perspective.
A “Secular Age” is one in which most individuals “know” that there may or may not be God, purpose, meaning or transcendence in life. A person’s life may be meaningless. The “next best” approach may only be to optimize the individual’s potential. There is “no exit”.
Doubt, skepticism and uncertainty are very powerful forces. Taylor argues that we all live based on implicit paradigms, beliefs, worldviews, assumptions, experiences, intuitions, etc. We are intuitive, social, historical beings. We absorb the beliefs of our culture. We don’t rationally evaluate and choose. About 4 million people are born in the US each year. 9,000 people earn philosophy degrees while 27,000 earn religion degrees annually. 1% of our citizens seriously pursue these questions.
In 1500, Western society was organic, with economics, politics, society and religion integrated into a well understood and accepted whole. Aristotle was “the philosopher”. St. Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics were applying logic to religious topics. History and tradition mattered. Morality and ethics were clearly defined and accepted. The spiritual dimension of nature and life was obvious. The personal Christian God was actively at work in the world. Priests and religious orders pursued perfection. Ordinary people supported the clergy and lived adequate Christian lives.
Modernity changed the Christian church. Luther elevated the role of the individual’s relationship with God, unmediated by clergy, in their local language. Each Church had to manage local politics to survive. Deism evolved as a scientific/rational form of religion.
The roles of economics, politics, society and religion were separated from each other. Social institutions evolved and learned to stand alone. Education, commerce and travel became more important.
Science became a driving force in understanding and controlling nature. It became commercially and politically important.
Individualistic philosophies developed. The “social contract” theory of politics was adopted and implemented.
Secular institutions were defined and provided services that replaced the role of the Church.
Today
We live in a world of skepticism, fear/insecurity, political polarization, subjectivity, tolerance, productivity, consumption, identity, searching, and striving.
The dominant approach of the professional class is deemed “the therapeutic society”. The individual reigns supreme. The individual is created to pursue his destiny, capabilities, potential or goal. The goal of the individual is to find/define and pursue this potential. Creativity, self-expression and authenticity are highly valued.
Taylor says that individuals seeking to pursue their capabilities still need feedback from their communities to validate their choices and results. They attempt to be radically independent but cannot do so.
There is a “tipping point” phenomenon at work. As science/technology became more insightful/effective, it became the default explanation for everything. In 1802 the mathematician Laplace replied to Napoleon’s question about the role of God in his latest book, “I have no need for that hypothesis”. The myth of the brave/heroic scientist/thinker overcoming social conventions and religious authorities was created and effectively employed. The false opposition of “science versus religion” was promoted.
The reduction in church attendance, membership and participation that occurred in Western countries along with education, urbanization and economic growth was deemed the “secularization hypothesis”: individuals automatically lost religion as civilization developed.
Our society promotes personal freedom, liberty and individual choice as the highest values. Our politicians and leaders encourage individualism. Economic production, success and consumption are elevated. The “free market” system becomes the model for social choices. Personal choices without limits are promoted. Government or social restrictions on individual choices are considered intrusions into sacred personal spaces.
Analysis and Hope
Taylor outlines the history of how our default worldview has changed. There has been continued growth and success of “instrumental logic” in science/technology and business/economics. The power of efficient causes alone in shaping and improving material well-being and possibilities is obvious. Individualism has grown to become a new God, with identity becoming all important. The possibility of “science” and “logic” explaining more and more and more has grown.
Taylor argues that we have assumed away the spiritual dimension of life. The progress of science has no bearing on important religious or philosophical questions. What is the meaning of life? Where did the world come from? Does the world have a purpose? How do scientific laws really work? How do I live a good life? How do I live in community? What is a good form of government? Why am I conscious? Why can I comprehend how the world works? What is beauty? What is religious feeling? Where does love come from?
Taylor argues that the scientific revolution lured us into believing that there are answers like Newton’s law of gravity and Euclid’s proofs of geometry that apply to all questions. We “rationalized” Christianity to make it “respectable”, creating Deism, but more importantly assuming that scientific rationality and logical proof is the only valid measure of success. Christian apologists sought to “prove” God and religious teachings. Religious leaders sought to modernize religion, stripping it of “irrational” content, deconstructing its content, evaluating it through literary and historical analysis, proving its merit through its application to social needs. Taylor says that this was a centuries long diversion.
Taylor highlights the failure of science and philosophy to be “fully rationalized”. Modern science cannot be reduced to a simplistic logical system beginning with a few assumptions and logically developing all results. Science is rational but not logically bullet-proof. It includes many features that are not “logical”. Science at very small and very large scales is strange and mysterious. Scientific disciplines use different methods and are sometimes incompatible. Emergent systems can be described but not in classic logical terms. Philosophy is used to analyze and deconstruct but it has failed to construct better answers.
Taylor and his popularizer, James K.A. Smith, emphasize that the spiritual dimension continues to “intrude” into everyday life for believers, skeptics, agnostics and atheists. Despite the progress of science, the secularization of society and the powerful influence of a “secular age” background worldview, spiritual experiences, ideas, thoughts, insights, longings, perceptions and behaviors don’t “go away”. They seem to be an intrinsic part of human life.
Like many modern Christian apologists, Taylor recommends that we reject the scientific method, logical proof, and Occam’s razor reductionist bias as the measure of religious/philosophical ideas, systems, processes, experiences and communities. He proposes that we consider “all available evidence”. What theory best matches the evidence? No theory is objectively true or fully comprehensive. Theories provide insights and answers to both common and difficult religious/philosophical questions. They are imperfect. Philosophical criticism indicates that there are trade-offs and shortcomings in all such systems. Taylor notes that it is only with the success of the scientific revolution that we have the audacity to expect to understand and explain everything about the universe including our religious/philosophical questions.
For many, Taylor’s conclusions seem like lukewarm apologetics. There is no certainty. We can’t trust science. We experience religion, so it must exist.
Taylor and his supporters argue that he is incorporating the best of human history and thought into his analysis and framework. We mistakenly believed that we could find reductionist answers to our questions. After 500 years of truly amazing scientific and economic progress we now know that this is impossible or very unlikely. We still have our religious/philosophical questions and experiences. They won’t go away. As with C.S. Lewis, he defines these explanations as myths or stories using human tools to provide insights into systems beyond our direct comprehension. The difference is that Christianity is a “true myth”.
We can choose to pursue a rational, reductionist, materialistic, non-spiritual solution. We can embrace a fully defined, literalist religious faith. Or, we can engage with a mysterious Christianity that provides essential answers that seem imperfect according to our modern conceptions of logic and rationality.
Exodus 3:14 New International Version
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
Good News 