"When Elephants Weep" and Pierre Theilard de Chardin

Following a friend's recommendation, I read "When Elephants Weep", a book that strongly captures the emotional qualities of animals. Since I was so positively biased in favor of animals, the author's ability to capture the emotional aspects of animals was most supportive of my preconceptions. I love animals.

One may wonder what this would have to do with Pierre Theihard de Chardin. To understand the connection requires my going back over 50 years when I was first exposed to his writing. Recalling that  I was transitioning as a seminarian from the constraints of a theology based on the post-Reformation. In the process of being liberated by the Vatican Council, I started reading de Chardin's works. It was such a great experience.

Pierre Theilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest who died in 1955 when he was 74. During his life as a paleontologist, he was both a highly esteemed scientist and a theologian whose works were discredited by church authorities. The gist of his work was his focus on evolution which was in itself not so revolutionary. When his writing started to see evolution as a process in which God is working out a somewhat novel approach to how Christ would become "all in all". One can imagine my reading of his poetic insights into the godly process of evolution. It was extraordinarily liberating. The process transcended religion. It superseded all religions as evolution became the vehicle moving toward the Omega (the End) when all would be glorified in union with Christ.

Relating Theihard de Chardin to "When Elephants Weep" is the notion that his conception that all things were "living", not just humans, animals, and insects, etc., but also what is usual referenced as non-living, e.g., stones. He did not suggest that the living dimensions of what we reference as non-animate are equal to the living dimensions of animals and  humans, but there was a continuum. If you get the implications of his thought, then you would see the need to consider all of creation as "living" with a corresponding need to be reverent of creation. Nothing is to be abused.

I can recall reading some of his poems to a patient at Emerson Hospital. His "Hymn of the Universe" brought tears to my eyes. When I was celebrating the Eucharist, I often saw myself as part of the entire universe, almost imaging myself dissolving into the universe.

At any rate, getting back to "When Elephants Weep", it becomes relatively easy to see how one can appreciate the emotional lives of animals if you start to envision the glorious and living dimensions of all things, including non-animate creations. The universe, now so much bigger than anyone could have imagined during the life of Pierre Theilhard de Chardin, has become more meaningful than ever for my understanding of God. While admitting my incapability of understanding God, I am in awe of creation. It is important for me to live my life as best I can to praise God by my respect of, and care of, Mother Earth and all her inhabitants, including animals.

While I am not a vegan, I do not eat much meat. I think being a vegan would be a honest response to my personal views. However, I still am not comfortable without that source of protein. It surely bothers me that the industry providing meat to the public ends up killing, sometimes in horrible ways, animals. In addition, the methods used to fatten animals is a problem for the environment and requires use of materials and land that would be otherwise better used. The costs of food for the animals are themselves problems for the environment. The problems of raising animals for food will only get worse. The populations of other nations are increasingly becoming more prosperous and one consequence is that they now have funds to use for meat. We can anticipate

I am glad that the research industry is now moving away from the use of animals. Sometimes, this decision has been precipitated by findings of horrendous conditions, e.g., the recent findings about Harvard University's animal lab.



Hopefully, it is somewhat clear how I was able to relate "When Elephants Weep" to one of my heroes, Pierre Theilhard de Chardin.

Frustration and Fascination with Economics

One of the blessings about retirement is the ability to spend more time reading and reading is what I do as often as possible. While I have read with interest topics relating to economics over the years, these past several years has represented an opportunity to advance my understanding of both micro and macroeconomics. To my surprise, the more that I know, the more I am aware how ignorant I am!

I can recall about two years ago being very prognostic that the Euro would decline its value to be equal to $1. At the time, given the problems associated with the great fiscal catastrophe, there seemed now way that the Euro would retain its value. Lo and behold, if I were one of those shorting the Euro, I would be begging for food now! I still do not understand why the Euro today is worth $1.32. Unemployment in the Eurozone is higher than ever and the problems with debt is no way near resolution.

It has been fascinating to watch the value of homes increase markedly in recent months. I could not understand how this could happen, given the number of foreclosures. Were all of these finally sold? As it turns out, big time investment firms bought tons of these foreclosed homes with the plan to use them as rentals until the market conditions were right for selling. I surely did not see this coming.

For some months, critics of Apple have cited the enormous amount of cash the corporation has on hand. Investors felt that this unused vast of money should be diverted as dividends to their shareholders. This made some sense since there is no new device being planned that would require huge financing. But, no, Apple decided to enter the debt market for $17 billion. They surely do not "need" additional money. They have more cash than the value Microsoft, Facebook, and some other big firms combined! Why did they do it? Money was so cheap that they could not resist the opportunity to use this money rather than their own to provide payback to investors. Amazing!

While I understand that the Federal Reserve was into Quantitative Easing (QE) to ensure that there was more liquidity in the market. However, it is amazing that all this money made available for loans has been used more for enabling banks to continue to "make" money with little social value. The major banks are making huge profits over these past three years with relatively little coming from the loan department (although mortgages have risen lately). Surely, the Federal Reserve did not intend the banks to be the principal beneficiaries of this initiative.

If one could live one's life over again, I would think strongly about a career in economics. While the field is often overwhelmed with their own disagreements about the nature of the problems and the appropriate solutions, I can see why someone would be totally fascinated to delve into the twists and turns of economic history.

Once again, the more I know, the more I am aware of my ignorance!