Connect with us

Opinion

The Eternal Quest: What is Truth?

Published

9 minute read

Mankind, from time immemorial, has been a seeker of Truth.

Civilizations from the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans, and the Mesopotamians to the modern roman empire have searched their world for Truth.   While earlier civilizations sought simpler Truths in their limited world view, our advanced ‘modern,’ society seeks more complexities using far different tools with the same boundless curiosity.

Before the modern era, men and women looked for truth in different ways.  Young men would set off with the armies and sea traders of their time in search for the answer to the burning desire in their souls, are the stories true?  Is there really a whole world to explore?  Are their great sea monsters as my grandfather told me?

Others, somewhat less adventurous and more academic, looked to the mysteries of alchemy or spiritual quests and tempted God by turning base lead in to Gold, worshiping false idols or seeking solace in the quiet spaces of monasteries and remote faith communities; all with an eye to Truth.  Can gold be made from base metals?  Is God, Allah, or Yahweh found in the wilderness or among men in our world? Can we hear the voice of God? How do we reconcile God in our lives?

Amidst the spread of civilization and the rise of the ages or reason and industrialization and technology, the quest for knowledge was not easily satiated with the greater good not always lining up with Truth but rather diversion and deception with Truth often being a casualty.

Most significantly the rise of the internet and information technologies has led to an increased pace of extremism with the left and right seeing greater division and the perceived requirement that there can be no reason or good discussion betwixt the ends of the spectrum.

We have seen this in far greater concentration since 2001 after the events of 911 with so-called conspiracy theories rising immediately.  Building on the momentum of the discoveries during that time, previous histories for events dating back to the great depression were released through various sources and previous ‘Truths,’ were contradicted and influenced by current global motivations.

If we consider the current Covid19 crisis, our sources of information can be mainstream media like CNN, ABC, NBC or the BBC or Al Jazeera or Fox.  Online, websites like beforeitsnews.com or outofmind.com or web presences of regular news broadcasts can inform readers in many ways.  In Canada, we look to the Rebel, CBC, CTV, or regular web news from browsers.

Our newspapers are no longer the haven of true current affairs.  Due to shrinking subscribership and advertising, there is no longer space to present multiple viewpoints for decision making. The issue of news bias is also a concern in many countries with censorship rising its ugly red pen.

Our social media world is rife with censorship.  YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook now all regularly delete content not in keeping with ‘community’ standards.  In the US election, many news items from both parties are not given equal treatment while in Canada, many anti-corruption and scandal news items are also given less than fair access to the public or have been deleted.

In the US, Q Anon has been teasing readers with more than 1500 entries filled with coded information seemingly educating readers on current affairs filled with details accurate enough to suggest an inside source.

The BIG questions are simple:  Is Covid 19 a hoax?  Is it real?  Has it been created by the mythical illuminati?  Do masks work?  Will a vaccine come in our lifetime?   Who is responsible for the patients care or payments IF the proposed vaccines do not work?  Or is it as dangerous to humanity and the draconian measures imposed are necessary to protect mankind?  Is the total makeover of society required to protect us?  Are lockdowns and economic control the answer to a biological condition?

Closely tied to the pandemic question is that of the politicians who want to see those behind the scenes brought to justice for their parts in various international crimes including Child trafficking, international drug trafficking, influence peddling, population control and other crimes against humanity.

The question of truth remains, and those with left leanings will incline their ears towards leftist ideologies and the rightists towards the right.  Centrists are often criticized for their balanced views and considering both sides of the discussion.

We have witnessed and will continue to witness the great cost to our communities of the divisive nature of the legislation and changing coping strategies suggested by health officials.  Families, church congregations, company work forces, sports team fans and employees and many associations have been shattered by our varying reactions to the conflicting ‘facts.’    We can’t forget that we are now also encouraged to report our friends and neighbours who do not follow the ‘rules.’

The sheer financial cost to economies being locked down, global, regional and local is beyond calculation.  Couple that with the social cost of the monetary turmoil and the resulting mental illness, overdose deaths, divorce rates, suicide, ‘natural’ deaths due to delayed medical treatment and future potential respiratory conditions triggered by improper and un-necessary mask usage and we have financial numbers that are nearly beyond belief.

This brings us back to the original premise.

We, as human beings who live in our communities, political leaders who lead our cities, states, provinces, and countries want one thing.  Mankind, throughout history, all over the world, has searched for ONE thing.

Truth.

Truth about our faith issues.  Truth about our politicians and their place in our world.  Truth about our future-will our children be able to survive?  Truth about our economies and the political policies that affect them.  Truth about everything.

The funny thing is that Truth cannot be relative because while times have changed, Truth would have changed and if that is true than we are probably all wrong and if I am right, you may be wrong and one of us is going to face eternity paying for poor decisions.  Not much hope there.  Therefore, Truth cannot change and moreover, it is not relative, it is absolute. It just IS.  No options.  And for Truth to be consistent for millennia, it cannot be based on circumstances, but rather something or someone who IS eternal and DOES NOT CHANGE.

Those who live their lives based on relative truths waiver like a ship on the ocean.

It has been said that there are no atheists in foxholes. Throughout the world, light is dispelling the darkness.

What is Truth

Just as Pontius Pilate asked Jesus when he stood before him prior to crucifixion, the question is the same and always will be be…

What is Truth?

Answer the question carefully.  Your life depends on it.

Tim Lasiuta is a Red Deer writer, entrepreneur and communicator. He has interests in history and the future for our country.

Follow Author

Opinion

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Published on

Congratulations World!

Here at THB we are ending 2025 with some incredibly good news that you might not hear about anywhere else — Globally, 2025 has had one of the lowest annual death rates from disasters associated with extreme weather events in recorded history.¹

According to data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium (via Our World in Data), through October 2025, the world saw about 4,500 deaths related to extreme weather events.² Tragically, the final two months of 2025 saw large loss of life related to flooding in South and Southeast Asia, associated with Cyclones Senyar and Ditwah.

While the final death tolls are not yet available, reports suggest perhaps 1,600 people tragically lost their lives in these and several other events in the final two months of the year.

If those estimates prove accurate, that would make 2025 among the lowest in total deaths from extreme weather events. Ever! I am cautious here because the recent decade or so has seen many years with similarly low totals — notably 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021.

What we can say with some greater confidence is that the death rate from extreme weather events is the lowest ever at less than 0.8 deaths per 100,000 people (with population data from the United Nations). Only 2018 and 2015 are close.

To put the death rate into perspective, consider that:

  • in 1960 it was >320 per 100,000;
  • in 1970, >80 per 100,000;
  • in 1980, ~3 per 100,000;
  • in 1990, ~1.3 per 100,000;

Since 2000, six years have occurred with <1.0 deaths per 100,000 people, all since 2014. From 1970 to 2025 the death rate dropped by two orders of magnitude. This is an incredible story of human ingenuity and progress.

To be sure, there is some luck involved as large losses of life are still possible — For instance, 2008 saw almost 150,000 deaths and a death rate of ~21 per 100,000. Large casualty events remain a risk that requires our constant attention and preparation.

But make no mistake, 2025 is not unique, but part of a much longer-term trend of reduced vulnerability and improved preparation for extreme events. Underlying this trend lies the successful application of science, technology, and policy in a world that has grown much wealthier and thus far better equipped to protect people when, inevitably, extreme events do occur.

Bravo World!

Learn more:

Formetta, G., & Feyen, L. (2019). Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazardsGlobal Environmental Change57, 101920.

1

What is “recorded history”? CRED says their data is robust since 2000, as their dataset did not have complete global coverage and perviously many events went unreported. That means that the tabulations of CRED prior to 2000 are with high certainty undercounts of actual deaths related to extreme weather events.

2

Note that extreme temperature event impacts (cold and hot) are not included here — Not becaue they are not a legitimate focus, but because tracking such events has only begun in recent years, and methodologies are necessarily different when it comes to accounting for the direct loss of life related to storms and floods (e.g., epidemiological mortality vs. actual mortality). See a THB discussion of some of these issues here. My recommendation is to account for extreme temperature impacts in parallel to impacts from events like hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes — Rather than trying to combine apples and oranges.

Subscribe to The Honest Broker.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on

By Resource Works

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X