Dementia, Manufacturing, and the Not so Missing Link

There are two disturbing trends in America right now that need some serious attention. The first is the increase in dementia type illnesses occurring among people who are still in the prime of their life, and the second is export of manufacturing jobs overseas. While I think it is nearly impossible to stop the exporting of manufacturing jobs in our current economic reality, I do believe it is possible to curb dementia with relative ease. It is no coincidence that there is an inverse relationship between domestic manufacturing and dementia. The correlation is staggering. The answer to solving the dementia pandemic is to increase people’s exposure to common manufacturing chemicals. Healthcare professionals are keeping this secret. Again, realize that as time has gone on, less and less Americans are having the opportunity to be exposed to various cutting fluids, paint fumes, and metallic dust, and we are just now beginning to see the price that under exposure to these chemicals is really playing on our public.  Of course we have heard the bogus arguments from the other side. Many people want to tell us that it is actually dementia that is causing the loss of manufacturing jobs, and that to reverse the trend of job exporting we must first begin to cure dementia. While I understand the logic, I do find it rather careless to blame memory impaired people for the state of manufacturing in the US. Frankly I am appalled at that proposition.  Now fortunately for all 13 of you who read my blog I have a surefire way to reduce your risk of developing dementia in your golden years. A group renowned people and I, have been scavenging through the rust-belt and purchasing up all the unused manufacturing fluids and gases that we can get our hands on.  Now this is a secret the government doesn’t want you know, because they have their greedy hands in our health care, and dementia is big business for them. Anyway, we have procured literally thousands of pounds worth of chemicals, and have created a scientific method for simulating healthy levels of factory exposure to these chemicals. You owe it to your family and to yourself to contact us, and make sure you get the exposure you need. Call 800-555-6565 for your free sample, don’t forget that number… or else… you’ll forget that number.

Ludicrous? Of course it is, yet you and I buy into, and even make arguments like this all the time. Entire movements are based on ideas similar to the one above. Anytime you read a story that begins with ‘studies have linked…’ you should put yourself on guard because more often than not a whole load of horse manure is about to spew forth on your page. (Organic horse manure, so maybe it is justified.) Of course this is not to discredit all stories that statistically link things together, but proceed with caution. The point is simply that in most cases correlation simply does not imply causation, especially in the incredibly complex world that we live in.

What causes obesity? Some say fast food, some say lack of exercise, some say its stress… I think it probably has something to do with sushi. More people in America are eating sushi than ever before, and more people are fat than ever before… coincidence? I think not. Seriously though, how many times will the FDA or the ‘organic’ or ‘vegitarian’ soldiers march through our streets telling us something is unhealthy, only to march down the street two years later saying the exact opposite before we will realize that maybe they just don’t know? That their arguments of causation from correlation are frankly wrong?  Can someone tell me what the current thinking is on potatoes, or whether high fiber diets actually reduce cholesterol or not?

Now if we project this tendency we have to grant causation to things correlated into the realm of the church we will see how prone to this thinking we are. Look at the worship wars for instance. Contemporary churches have typically seen more growth than traditional offerings, especially through the nineties and the early part of this century, therefore to grow the church we must become more culturally relevant. Seems like a good argument right? Or how about this, the sharpest period of decline ever in the American church corresponded in conjunction with the burgeoning movement of contemporary music into traditional churches.  Uh… two stories correlating different things, yet giving the exact opposite messages… both with stats to back them up.  Both sides can argue all they want, and people will line up and spend big money to go to conferences based entirely off of these ideas, without ever knowing that they are being sold placebo.  I can tell you the secret to church growth, and this is free for everyone who has read this far.  What you need to have happen at your church in order for it to grow is this: You need to see to it that number of people entering your ranks exceeds the number of people dying and or leaving the church. If you can do that I will guarantee your church will grow. I promise.

So what’s the point? Everyone is hopeful for a miracle and even willing to see a miracle in things that are obviously not miraculous. People stuff gel capsules with roots in them down their throat in hopes to stave off cancer. People use the latest strategies to present the gospel. People switch out to the latest leadership models to grow their church. People hope rigid spiritual disciplines with solve tepid discipleship, and on and on the list goes. And most of the justification behind all of these fads and trends is someone well-meaning soul who has determined causation based on correlation.