By James L Gelvin, University of California, Los Angeles

How far back in history does one have to go to find the roots of the so-called Islamic State (IS)?

To the oil shock of 1973-74, when Persian Gulf oil producers used the huge surplus of dollars flowing into their coffers to finance the spread of their severe interpretation of Islam?

To the end of the first world war, when the victorious entente powers sparked resentment throughout the Arab world by drawing artificial national borders we hear so much about today? How about 632 AD, the date of the death of the prophet Muhammad, when the early Islamic community split on who should succeed him as its leader — a breach that led to the Sunni-Shi'i divide that IS exploits for its own ends?

The possibilities seem endless and would make for an entertaining variation on the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon parlour game (which suggests any two people on earth are six or fewer acquaintance links apart) were the subject not so macabre.

Our first Adopt-A-Clinic blood drive on February 13 was a success, even though I fainted just after my donation.

Editor's note: Craig Spence has generously offered to contribute some posts to our blog. He submitted the following as his introduction. ~Ian

Writing is my way of understanding, it’s a vocation, in other words, a part of who I am. So I have built my career – my peculiar contribution to society – around writing. If I could, I would have been among the world’s most popular novelists, and spent my life intensely engaged in speculative fiction of one sort or another. Being ‘successful’ as a creative writer is still my goal. But the necessities of living, and contributing to a family, have taken precedence for the last 30 years. So I have followed my passion in other forms: for 15 years as a community journalist; and another 15 as communications manager with a large, urban school district. More recently I am back behind the editor’s desk at the Ladysmith-Chemainus Chronicle, a small weekly on Vancouver Island. Along the way I have written five novels, had two published, and have plans for at least five more works of fiction, if my health holds out.

The other weekend, my wife and I cantered the 400-odd kilometres from Lethbridge to Calgary and back to attend a forum organized by St Andrew’s Church on the subject of physician-assisted dying. A learned panel of speakers had been assembled consisting of two physicians, one of whom was also an Alberta MLA, two lawyers, a priest and an Edmonton chapter member of Dying With Dignity Canada. The whole affair was moderated by an emeritus professor, who suffered from moderately severe logorrhea.

Hospital and health care institutions run by religious organizations in BC received nearly $1 billion from the provincial government in 2015.

By Tara Martin, CSIRO and James Watson, The University of Queensland

When we think about adapting humanity to the challenges of climate change, it’s tempting to reach for technological solutions. We talk about seeding our oceans and clouds with compounds designed to trigger rain or increasing carbon uptake. We talk about building grand structures to protect our coastlines from rising sea levels and storm surges.

However, as we discuss in Nature Climate Change, our focus on these high-tech, heavily engineered solutions is blinding us to a much easier, cheaper, simpler and better solution to adaptation: look after our planet’s ecosystems, and they will look after us.

On Sunday, February 14, 2016, Dr Ahmed Hussein, a professor of nuclear physics and a visiting scientist at TRIUMF and Los Alamos National Laboratory, spoke to 38 of us on the next generation of nuclear power plants based on thorium fluid fuel. A lively but short discussion followed Dr Hussein's detailed explanation of how nuclear power is better than coal and how the dual fluid fuel fission reactor his group had designed is the next big step forward in nuclear power. He claims it to be much safer, much cheaper to build and operate, and best of all, it is able to reuse radioactive waste from current generations of nuclear reactors as part of its fuel.

Nearly all Humanists support the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that Canadians should have the right to a physician's assistance to die according to a new poll.

One year ago the Supreme Court struck down Canada's absolute prohibition on physician-assisted dying. The new poll, conducted by Ipsos Reid for Dying With Dignity Canada, found that 98% of atheists, agnostics and Humanists support the decision as well as 93% of those with no religious identity.

By Benjamin Purzycki, University of British Columbia

For the bulk of our evolutionary history, human groups were small, tightly knit communities. Only quite recently, some human groups started evolving into the large-scale societies with vast interconnected trade networks we know today. Urban areas in Mesopotamia, for example, developed around 5,000 years ago. Whether trading or purchasing goods online, many people all over the world now interact with multitudes of anonymous people on a regular basis. How did this dramatic growth happen?

Editor's note: While this article deals primarily with conscientious objections by American pharmacists, similar arguments have been and are being made today in British Columbia and across Canada. This is particularly relevant in relation to the current debate over whether to permit doctors, pharmacists and health care institutions to opt-out of providing physician-assisted dying in Canada. The BC Humanist Association has called called on policymakers to prioritize guaranteed access over giving doctors and institutions an opt-out of doing their duty.

This article was originally published on TheHumanist.com.

By Luis Granados

I drink a fair amount of wine, much of which I purchase at my local convenience store. Suppose I show up there one day and find the wine section replaced by something less pleasant, like detergent. I complain to the owner, who tells me she just doesn’t feel like selling wine anymore or that she thought she could make more money selling detergent instead. I’d be a little miffed, but that’s the way the free market works.

Suppose instead she told me she’d just converted to Islam, or Mormonism, and that’s why she no longer sold alcohol. I’d be even more unhappy (not proud to admit that, but it’s true), but my grumbling wouldn’t extend as far as “There ought to be a law…” I’d just go somewhere else, most likely for all my non-alcohol purchases as well.

Today’s question is: should the same thinking apply to pharmacies? It’s a highly relevant question, because a case involving pharmacists’ right to refuse to fill prescriptions has just been petitioned to review by the Supreme Court.