It seems like churches should be the first to adopt new “Green Energy” technologies and become early adopters of the ecology movements across the United States. Yet, because of the platform nature of the global warming debate, many aren’t even thinking about it… especially conservative Southern churches where politics fill pulpits Sunday after Sunday.
I’m not going to make a theological case for going green; these kinds of arguments have been made in countless other places, and I believe quite sufficiently. I’m not even going to bother with trying to make the case for global warming because as a skeptic by nature, I wouldn’t know enough to even convince myself about the topic.
But I do think churches should be ecologically centered and make the switch to Green Energy. Here’s my three P’s as to why, and they shouldn’t matter as to which side of the political fence you built your facility.
Potential. No matter how any of us might feel about the data surrounding the climate change issues, a few things we can be certain of… change is happening, and it is real. If there was even the slightest potential that human dependence on fossil fuels was driving some of that change, churches should lead the way as champions of prevention. I understand the multi-faceted objections that are often raised, ranging anywhere from, “That’s a liberal issue” to the perplexing and ill-conceived “Jesus is coming back to fix it all anyway” mentality. What doesn’t compute is doing nothing at all. Churches often make claims to “prophetic visioning” of culture and its many ills. If there was even the potential that our actions were leading to climate instability, why would we fail to find the intestinal fortitude to take a prophetic stance for green energy?
If there’s even a possibility that our habits are impacting future generations, then the church must stand on the side of those with vision. It doesn’t have to be a knee-jerk reaction, and it certainly doesn’t have to be coupled with political grand standing. It doesn’t have to assume identification with any agendas or platforms. Instead, it should be about seeing clearly the potential of human beings to make things better. That’s what churches are supposed to be about, right?
Forget the debate about whether global warming is real or made up. It’s a deflection of a deeper issue, which is the responsibility we all share to be forward thinkers and doers in a global community. So if there was even a remote “chance” of making a positive difference, why would anyone toss it out?
Protection. I’m not talking about protection of the planet (that would fall under the P of potential). Until the science is complete (and it is getting more and more clear with each passing year), we just can’t know with certainty if our actions are protecting the planet or not. Whether or not we’re making a difference there, we can at least rest knowing for certain that we aren’t making anything worse. As I stated above, the potential ought to be enough to get us moving.
By using the word protection here, I’m instead talking about what many have described as the largest transfer of wealth history has ever recorded. Billions of dollars are virtually signed over to foreign companies every year. American asset protection is one great reason for churches to go green. The more money we can save on energy, even at the local church level, the more assets we have to share with the world in areas of greatest need – such as eliminating disease, mental illness, drug abuse, and poverty.
Protection also comes by way of our democratic values. Many of the recipients of the billions of dollars we send overseas do not have the better interests of freedom in mind. They often represent cruel dictatorships, seldom distribute the money in ways that benefit their impoverished or fund better educations systems. And in some cases, the money we send them can be directly tied to activities that are not only unsympathetic to democratic values, but actually at war with them.
Churches must adopt energy policies that protect the innocent, enhance freedom, and support the under-privileged. We can’t do that while sending billions of dollars per year to be utilized outside the boundaries of our laws and values.
Perception. The last P is an important one, and that is perception. There can be little doubt that the world perceives Christians as being self-centered, judgmental, divisive, and ecologically apathetic. Heck, I’m a Christian and I see so many of us this way myself. It’s extremely damaging to our faith to be constantly known for what we are against, but seldom if ever known what we are for. We come across as combative, ideological zealots, and we fail to embody the kindness and compassion of Jesus when we draw lines in the sand on the issue of ecology.
Perception isn’t everything, and I certainly wouldn’t advocate that it is the responsibility of the church to please everyone – in fact I might argue quite the opposite. But when it comes to being a positive force for change in this world, I see no reason why we should not be on the forefront of such causes. I see an opportunity to reach outside of the political agendas and find common ground. I see churches earning the right to be heard, because we’ve been faithful with the environment we share with others.
And let’s face it folks, if Christians aren’t willing to take a shared approach to the air we all breathe, why in heaven or earth would anyone care what we have to say about a giving God? Churches may not want this negative perception attached to them, but when they fail to be ecologically focused, that’s exactly what happens.
Potential for change, protection of assets, and perceptions of generosity – that’s what is really at stake whether or not you believe in global warming. Churches should make the switch. Go Green today!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Digital Publishing, Grain Drills, and Bumper Crops
I’m no farmer, but I have to say I enjoyed reading up on the advent of the grain drill and what it has done for wheat farming. Apparently, when wheat is scattered by hand it can cut into the yields considerably – this is due to the seed not falling into the ground at the proper depth, as well as it being planted to close to another seed.
Depth and Spacing: I’m not sure if there is a more appropriate metaphor for a new kind of industrial advent: digital publications. As it stands today, writers have a couple of options for taking something to print. There’s the standard route, which is to scale the nearly insurmountable wall of agents, editors, and corporate execs to land with both feet inside the fortress of a big time publishing company. There’s smaller press, specializing in particular areas that may or may not relate to a writer’s publishing goals. And then there’s what some refer to as the ‘vanity press,’ which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It allows you as the writer to edit, publish, market, and sell your own work. Anyone can do it.
Digital Publishing: A Pest or Pesticide?
A new option is on the horizon, scratch that, it’s already upon us and there seems to be some debate as to whether or not this new thing is good or bad for the industry. Digital publishing is being hailed by some as a next wave which will crumble a few castles to the ground, while simultaneously lifting all our boats. I think it is a bit too early to tell exactly what it’s going to do. One thing I do feel confident about though, human beings tend to naturally take the paths of least resistance and when acting as a whole, our species tends to settle on a lowest common denominator.
Imagine making a purchase of a novel or a comic book and having full ownership rights of it – meaning you can place it on your X-Box 360, iPhone, or pocket reader and carry it around without even noticing it’s there. That’s what I mean by the path of least resistance. We’re talking – easy to get to, smaller, lighter, affordable (and some might say even “cheap”), ever-present and at your finger tips.
Alongside this revolution for the reader, comes a different revolution for the writer: a backdoor for getting your stuff out there and into people’s hands. At the moment, there haven’t been any leaders of the pack emerge in the area of digital vanity press, but rest assured they will come. When they do, every Tom, Dick, and Harry whose ever written a book, or even half a book, will be out in carte blanche… scattering seeds by hand.
Some would argue that this is already happening through internet blogs (hey, you are here aren’t you?), electronic news channels, Twitter updates on world events (and even celebrity grocery bag contents), sport’s interviews, online novels, web comics, ad nauseum. Articles are appearing on top of articles, blogs on top of blogs. Some argue that mediocre writing is smothering out good writing, and some good writing is smothering out great writing. They believe that mass accessibility lowers the competitive bar that formal publishers raise for writers, the flood gates open, banality ensues. This is the lowest common denominator that human beings tend to naturally settle for if given the full druthers to do as they please. (Have you looked at the top ten YouTube videos lately?)
On the other side of the coin, some argue that digital publishing is going to relinquish the old guard from its command. New and exciting things will find their way to print, breaking the mold of what’s “acceptable” to bring to print or deemed “good enough” to find a platform. It’s already changing the way we get our news. No longer do news companies get to decide what’s news worthy – we do that now as bloggers and Twitter fans upload live shots and commentary from events that could possibly be a world away. Is there any reason to believe this level of immediacy won’t also find its way to scientific journals, archeological finds, novels, or even iReports from major league baseball games? Isn’t even the lowest common denominator better for everyone than something polished but beyond our control? The Libertarian in me wants to say yes.
So is digital print and distribution a pest or a pesticide? I think maybe it’s a little of both. Too much information can be good or bad. As in all things however, I do have hopes. My deepest hope is that the process will be fine-tuned and formalized in a way that maximizes the harvest of good information, good entertainment, and quality material.
Digital Publishing: Building a Grain Drill
I’m not sure why I was so excited to learn about grain drills early this year, but my reading gave me a picture of the process and the way in which it increased wheat yields by as much as 300%, enabling us to begin transforming the face of world hunger. The purpose of the grain drill is mechanizing the seed distribution so that each kernel of wheat (singular) is appropriately spaced from its sister kernels and that each kernel is planted at the appropriate depth.
Digital Publishing – Spacing
It seems to me that one of the complaints, concerns, issues and such is that the advent of digital publishing will cram markets and thereby overrun existing ones. This is already happening to local newspapers. The second issue with regards to spacing in the digital age is that really great work can spring up right beside a whole lot of really bad work. That really bad work potentially casts a shadow over the things that people probably ought to be reading – like peer reviewed science articles vs. non-peer reviewed science articles. With too many poorly conceived, poorly written, and poorly reviewed works springing up in our fields, we watch them suck the nutrients from the soil, leaving a host of good material struggling to find an audience. This isn’t a new problem; it’s plagued the film industry and printed media since before I was born.
Even so, what is new to this process is the general malaise of the reading public regarding where they will turn for quality. As it currently stands, there is an analogous set of data streams out there, with little or no indication of “Who’s got the stuff and who’s got the fluff.”
I propose that we adopt a grain drill approach to spacing digital work, and that the only way to successfully maintain good space for good stuff is for top publishing companies to network together to create a recognizable brand name for digital distribution. In other words, as a consumer I want to know exactly where to go to find quality. I want to know who has been peer reviewed, who has had their references checked, and who had the skill to both impress a major publisher as well as climb the “fourth wall” and impress the men and women dolling out dollars for work.
This can’t really happen without some team players at the top. Whatever digital distribution format is selected it really will be only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. A good example that I believe publishing companies need to follow can be found here:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21693
Comics have struggled since the spinner racks left the gas stations and supermarkets. They’ve nearly price pointed themselves to oblivion. I recently heard about an Eisner Award winning writer who only sold 6,000 copies of his first issue. Digital Longbox is going to reduce the risk of dropping four dollars on something that might suck. A few industry publishers are already jumping on board to the format, so readers can be assured that they’ll at least be getting the quality they’re used to from their favorite creators. As a fan, I will know where to go to give something a test run and can do it at ¼ the cost. My digital investment can pay off because LongBox will allow me to apply a credit of my digital purchase toward a hard copy of the work should I be so inclined. It reduces paper and printing costs, reduces waste, reduces risk to publishers and creators by lowering the initial financial investment, allows for print-to-order marketing and distribution, and gives readers a place to turn to try new things by lowering fears of stepping too far out on a financial limb by purchasing something they might not like. Publisher, creator, reader – win, win, win.
Digital Publishing – Depth
The grain drill plants individual kernels of wheat at a programmed depth, thereby preventing them from being planted too shallow (and being eaten by the birds) or too deep (and never being able to emerge from the soil). During the recent turmoil in Iran, there was much debate about what was getting reported and by whom. The sources were unverified and popping up from all over the world. Retractions, redactions, and apologies sometimes followed. What was news? What was commentary? What was opinion? And most importantly, what was fact?
I’m no farmer, but I have to say I enjoyed reading up on the advent of the grain drill and what it has done for wheat farming. Apparently, when wheat is scattered by hand it can cut into the yields considerably – this is due to the seed not falling into the ground at the proper depth, as well as it being planted to close to another seed.
Depth and Spacing: I’m not sure if there is a more appropriate metaphor for a new kind of industrial advent: digital publications. As it stands today, writers have a couple of options for taking something to print. There’s the standard route, which is to scale the nearly insurmountable wall of agents, editors, and corporate execs to land with both feet inside the fortress of a big time publishing company. There’s smaller press, specializing in particular areas that may or may not relate to a writer’s publishing goals. And then there’s what some refer to as the ‘vanity press,’ which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It allows you as the writer to edit, publish, market, and sell your own work. Anyone can do it.
Digital Publishing: A Pest or Pesticide?
A new option is on the horizon, scratch that, it’s already upon us and there seems to be some debate as to whether or not this new thing is good or bad for the industry. Digital publishing is being hailed by some as a next wave which will crumble a few castles to the ground, while simultaneously lifting all our boats. I think it is a bit too early to tell exactly what it’s going to do. One thing I do feel confident about though, human beings tend to naturally take the paths of least resistance and when acting as a whole, our species tends to settle on a lowest common denominator.
Imagine making a purchase of a novel or a comic book and having full ownership rights of it – meaning you can place it on your X-Box 360, iPhone, or pocket reader and carry it around without even noticing it’s there. That’s what I mean by the path of least resistance. We’re talking – easy to get to, smaller, lighter, affordable (and some might say even “cheap”), ever-present and at your finger tips.
Alongside this revolution for the reader, comes a different revolution for the writer: a backdoor for getting your stuff out there and into people’s hands. At the moment, there haven’t been any leaders of the pack emerge in the area of digital vanity press, but rest assured they will come. When they do, every Tom, Dick, and Harry whose ever written a book, or even half a book, will be out in carte blanche… scattering seeds by hand.
Some would argue that this is already happening through internet blogs (hey, you are here aren’t you?), electronic news channels, Twitter updates on world events (and even celebrity grocery bag contents), sport’s interviews, online novels, web comics, ad nauseum. Articles are appearing on top of articles, blogs on top of blogs. Some argue that mediocre writing is smothering out good writing, and some good writing is smothering out great writing. They believe that mass accessibility lowers the competitive bar that formal publishers raise for writers, the flood gates open, banality ensues. This is the lowest common denominator that human beings tend to naturally settle for if given the full druthers to do as they please. (Have you looked at the top ten YouTube videos lately?)
On the other side of the coin, some argue that digital publishing is going to relinquish the old guard from its command. New and exciting things will find their way to print, breaking the mold of what’s “acceptable” to bring to print or deemed “good enough” to find a platform. It’s already changing the way we get our news. No longer do news companies get to decide what’s news worthy – we do that now as bloggers and Twitter fans upload live shots and commentary from events that could possibly be a world away. Is there any reason to believe this level of immediacy won’t also find its way to scientific journals, archeological finds, novels, or even iReports from major league baseball games? Isn’t even the lowest common denominator better for everyone than something polished but beyond our control? The Libertarian in me wants to say yes.
So is digital print and distribution a pest or a pesticide? I think maybe it’s a little of both. Too much information can be good or bad. As in all things however, I do have hopes. My deepest hope is that the process will be fine-tuned and formalized in a way that maximizes the harvest of good information, good entertainment, and quality material.
Digital Publishing: Building a Grain Drill
I’m not sure why I was so excited to learn about grain drills early this year, but my reading gave me a picture of the process and the way in which it increased wheat yields by as much as 300%, enabling us to begin transforming the face of world hunger. The purpose of the grain drill is mechanizing the seed distribution so that each kernel of wheat (singular) is appropriately spaced from its sister kernels and that each kernel is planted at the appropriate depth.
Digital Publishing – Spacing
It seems to me that one of the complaints, concerns, issues and such is that the advent of digital publishing will cram markets and thereby overrun existing ones. This is already happening to local newspapers. The second issue with regards to spacing in the digital age is that really great work can spring up right beside a whole lot of really bad work. That really bad work potentially casts a shadow over the things that people probably ought to be reading – like peer reviewed science articles vs. non-peer reviewed science articles. With too many poorly conceived, poorly written, and poorly reviewed works springing up in our fields, we watch them suck the nutrients from the soil, leaving a host of good material struggling to find an audience. This isn’t a new problem; it’s plagued the film industry and printed media since before I was born.
Even so, what is new to this process is the general malaise of the reading public regarding where they will turn for quality. As it currently stands, there is an analogous set of data streams out there, with little or no indication of “Who’s got the stuff and who’s got the fluff.”
I propose that we adopt a grain drill approach to spacing digital work, and that the only way to successfully maintain good space for good stuff is for top publishing companies to network together to create a recognizable brand name for digital distribution. In other words, as a consumer I want to know exactly where to go to find quality. I want to know who has been peer reviewed, who has had their references checked, and who had the skill to both impress a major publisher as well as climb the “fourth wall” and impress the men and women dolling out dollars for work.
This can’t really happen without some team players at the top. Whatever digital distribution format is selected it really will be only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. A good example that I believe publishing companies need to follow can be found here:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21693
Comics have struggled since the spinner racks left the gas stations and supermarkets. They’ve nearly price pointed themselves to oblivion. I recently heard about an Eisner Award winning writer who only sold 6,000 copies of his first issue. Digital Longbox is going to reduce the risk of dropping four dollars on something that might suck. A few industry publishers are already jumping on board to the format, so readers can be assured that they’ll at least be getting the quality they’re used to from their favorite creators. As a fan, I will know where to go to give something a test run and can do it at ¼ the cost. My digital investment can pay off because LongBox will allow me to apply a credit of my digital purchase toward a hard copy of the work should I be so inclined. It reduces paper and printing costs, reduces waste, reduces risk to publishers and creators by lowering the initial financial investment, allows for print-to-order marketing and distribution, and gives readers a place to turn to try new things by lowering fears of stepping too far out on a financial limb by purchasing something they might not like. Publisher, creator, reader – win, win, win.
Digital Publishing – Depth
The grain drill plants individual kernels of wheat at a programmed depth, thereby preventing them from being planted too shallow (and being eaten by the birds) or too deep (and never being able to emerge from the soil). During the recent turmoil in Iran, there was much debate about what was getting reported and by whom. The sources were unverified and popping up from all over the world. Retractions, redactions, and apologies sometimes followed. What was news? What was commentary? What was opinion? And most importantly, what was fact?
The digital wave lacked any appropriate mechanism for determining the substance of what was being distributed. I hardly see other genres of digital media being much different. Items that are put forward without the proper amount of review can reside in a shallow soil and be immediately placed at risk of over-consumption by the birds. These digital offerings of the lowest common denominator make me want to shut the whole process down. Twitter doesn’t need regulation, but the degree in which we rely on it for any sort of quality information does.
Again, I point us to the Digital Longbox project. The creators of this distribution format have a board of industry professionals providing input on the process from its development to its implementation. If they build the wall too high, writers will see their works buried too low and some really great things will have to find another way to see the light of day. If they build the wall too low, then readers like myself will walk away looking for a better standard.
Building a digital grain drill is a Catch 22 when it comes to issues of substance and depth. It is going to take more than the minds of one or two publishers, and Digital Longbox is setting the standard in that regard, I believe. What remains to be seen is whether or not the reality will match the idea. Will a consumer be able to find quality, accessibility, and a good bargain for their dime? Will content receive the right amount of attention and keep Eisner Award winning writers somewhere other than the page gutters? Will there be enough energy to choke out the really bad digital vanity presses? Can authors who’ve typically planted seeds so deep that they get passed over by the “professionals” in the publishing industry finally find an outlet?
I think so, but I’m an optimist. I think over the next decade we will see the industry adopt a more streamlined approach. There will be plenty of digital room to scatter kernels by hand. And some of those offerings are going to rock the world and turn our accepted formats upside once again. The digital grain drill is being created as we speak, and what we need are more industry pros getting on board – from all fields too – novels, scripts, scientific and sociological articles, religious writing, poetry, and more. The standard hoe is about to be replaced, but it need not come at the expense of quality, depth, and illumination.
I believe it’s all good. I believe in a bumper crop of greatness emerging from a new generation of writers. I believe because I believe in the human spirit, what it can accomplish when freedom and responsibility join hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)