Could AI really wipe us out? Sure, most of us anyway. When it comes to wiping us out we will even do the heavy lifting.
Look at it this way. When you get food what are the chances you first laid eyes on it in a supermarket? That's where we tend to get introduced to our food.
How hard would it be to derail the essential steps we don't even see? Some one has to raise the critters we love to eat. Someone else grows the crops that are transformed into our vegetables. There are essential steps along the way - production, harvesting, processing, finance, transportation. If any of those steps breaks down our grocery shelves are empty. Panic ensues. Remember when people hoarded toilet paper? Funny now but it wasn't funny then.
Could AI get to the point where it sabotages one or more aspects of the food chain on which our lives depend? We've already seen that AI can go rogue even lying to us. There's an element of malice to that. How are you feeling so far?
How long can we hold out without access to food? How strong or fragile is civil society?
Military historian, columnist and author, Gwynne Dyer, captured our dilemma in his book "Climate Wars" when he wrote that even the nicest village will slaughter its neighbours before it will allow its children to starve.
Well, just as you wonder if the American nation can sink any lower into abject debasement, along comes Pete Hegseth with his newest plan to both provoke and briefly satiate the people's bloodlust.
I don't think there is much I really need to say about this. I'm sure my moral outrage over such an obscenity is shared by most of the world. And I doubt I would be correct in saying that the U.S. has finally hit rock bottom, given that Trump and his obsequious coterie have another two years in office.
Under normal circumstances, at my age two years would be a very short time. In this case, however, that time frame seems well-nigh interminable.
Although I haven't had a great deal of time lately to write, I always have time to think about things that affect our country. One of those things is the immense amount of money the Carney government is committing to, and spending on, defence and nation-building projects.
Given the obvious threat posed by an increasingly belligerent and imperialistic America, a compelling argument can certainly be made that such expenditures are necessary. I fall into that category, but the question that bedevils me is who will wind up paying the bill? The obvious answer is the taxpayer, but that answer is perhaps too simplistic. Yes, the bill will always come due, but it would seem with Mr. Carney's latest inducements to investors means the corporate sector will be exempt in sharing that bill.
"Our goal is simple — to make Canada the most attractive place in the G7 to invest," Prime Minister Mark Carney said at the summit.
The program is an expansion of the government's earlier productivity super-deduction outlined in last year's budget, which initially extended to a limited selection of investments in things like equipment, machinery and technology. That meant only about 15 per cent of possible investments were covered initially, but the prime minister said the expansion means two-thirds of assets will now be eligible.
That now brings Canada's business marginal effective tax rate down to 6.4%. The G7 average rate, excluding our country, is 26%. This change rate reflects a huge loss in government revenue, one that cannot be replaced unless the government intends to raise tax rates for the rest of us. And that doesn't seem likely, given politicians' aversion to overtly antagonizing the people. One remembers the abandonment of changes to the Capital Gains Inclusion Rate as a useful example.
No, the much more likely scenario is a cutback in various federal supports and programs. Please check this link to look at some of the things being 'deprioritized'. For additional information, please click here. Clearly, the cuts described will be substantial, all in the service of the government's announced priorities: defence and nation building, as discussed above. And, of course, what is on the cutting block disproportionately affects our most vulnerable. A quick overview of measures relating just to health render a vivid portrait:
The current Liberal government is in the process of making deep cuts to a long series of other federal health initiatives.
Among the health programs on Carney’s chopping block are:
the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC);
the National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases;
the Emergency Treatment Fund, which provides assistance to Indigenous communities and municipalities to deal with the opioid crisis;
a 10-year $6 billion federal contribution to home and community care;
and the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy.
There is, of course, much more involved, as you will see with the above links, but the inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that Mr. Carney's nation-building program leaves little room for the development and maintenance of non-tangibles; concrete, steel and pipelines are the only things that seem to matter here.
So what is the answer to declining government revenues that will mean the gutting of much-needed programs? Unlike The Globe and Mail, which advocates for more income tax cuts and an elevation of the GST to 18%, a move that would, again, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, there is an elegant and simple solution to increase government revenues. It would modestly affect those most able to afford it: a 0.25% charge on stock and bond trading. Such financial transaction fees are hardly rare in the world, as this link illustrates.
How much revenue would this raise? Given the Canadian volume of trade in stocks and bonds, in theory it could be as high as $70 billion, but likely less for those who would perhaps move to other jurisdictions to avoid the fee. Nonetheless, it would be a substantial source of revenue for a government spending well beyond its means and also provide cash for people's programs that are being reduced or ended. And the beauty of the measure is that it would apply to those most able to pay it. For example, someone buying $100,000 in stocks would pay a mere $250 for the transaction,.
Sadly, I doubt such a move would be considered by our government, which seems to have mega-project stars in its eyes while being blind to the needs of the people who elected it.
Amidst the tumult of the trade war, it is easy to suspend one's critical thinking and simply join in the national fervour of support for Mark Carney and his initiatives. As I have written before, while I find much to applaud in the Prime Minister's initiatives, it is easy to forget that a blanket endorsement in not in anyone's best interests.
The following letters to the editor point out a few of things we should be pondering.
A healthy economy comes from everyone paying their fair share
But why does the idea persist corporations should be taxed less?
Low corporate taxes can be seen as another form of corporate welfare. Why should Canadian individuals bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden?
This is a fallacy that needs to be challenged.
Corporations are not entities that need to be coddled. Their fundamental purpose is to generate profit. But they also depend on people — as workers, consumers and members of the communities in which they operate. They cannot generate profits without them.
Meanwhile, wages for ordinary workers have stagnated while executive compensation has risen dramatically over the past several decades. That raises a broader question about who is benefiting from the economic growth that corporate tax policy is intended to encourage.
The Fraser Institute is right that corporate welfare deserves scrutiny. But so does the assumption that keeping corporate taxes low is inherently good for society.
The real question is simple: Who should bear the tax burden, and what is a fair contribution from those who benefit from our economy?
If we’re serious about creating a prosperous economy we should be asking everyone who benefits from it to contribute their fair share — corporations and individuals alike.
You applaud the Building Canada Strong Act because the legislation “rebalances” the power between unions and employers. Needless to say, employers are unanimously in favour of these reforms.
The new law would empower the government to terminate a lawful strike and impose arbitration by ministerial fiat, from behind closed doors. One would have thought any “balance” of interests would start with the fact that the government proposes to curtail a Charter right in favour of business efficiency and profit.
Moreover, the government already has the power to enact back-to-work legislation in Parliament after full public debate and discussion. Surely the existing parliamentary process brings far more transparency and accountability rather than a minister’s direction initiated by an employer’s initiative.
To borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister who proposed this new law: Charter rights are not “written in pencil” to be negated by government upon the request of big corporations.
Paul Cavalluzzo CM, O.Ont, LSM; Toronto
In your support for the government’s proposed labour law reforms contained within Bill C-39, you argue that they would “only apply for disruptions with significant national impact.” Therein lies the rub.
Who gets to determine whether a strike has “significant national impact?” Presumably, the federal government will define “significant” as it sees fit.
That you cite, with approval, measures to limit the right to strike in the United States, where successive administrations have for decades rolled back the rights of both unions and workers, is downright scary.
David BrightSt. Catharines, Ont.
It is easy to overlook things we don't like when we are in a battle against a deranged United States. The above letters suggest giving our government an uncritical pass is hardly in the national interest.
Sometimes when watching my daily half-hour allotment of American network news, I find my curiosity turning philosophical. One of the questions that recur repeatedly is why the American people chose the moronic Trump to lead their country not once, but twice.
In writing about the acolytes of both Trump and Pierre Poilievre, Stephen Maher offers his thoughts, but I am not sure they are the entire answer.
As support for both Trump and Poilievre has diminished — they both have approval ratings of 32 per cent — I am starting to think that their remaining supporters are — how to put it? — not as intellectually inclined as other voters.
He considers the commonalities of the Conservatives and Trump, and observes that because Carney has definitely moved the Liberals to the right,
Poilievre is left with the cognitively impaired, the anti-vaxxers, the social conservatives and permanently outraged.
Those characteristics could also be applied to Trump's supporters, of course, if we add in their innate racism and strong belief in American exceptionalism, two touchstones the President has regularly exploited.
Again, however, I am left with a sense of incompleteness, leading me to speculate in what ways Trump might be a manifestation of the national character. Certainly, we know part of that character embraces rugged individualism and unbridled capitalism, and one thinks of a quote, attributed to various people:
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
I wonder if there might be a corollary to this. Is it possible that lurking within the American breast is a dark, hidden, grudging admiration for people who employ 'sharp' practices? In other words, do many of Trump's fanbase admire conmen that both profit from their cons and offer an 'easy way' to riches for themselves, even at the expense of others?
The evidence for my thesis is, at best, circumstantial.
Consider, for example, the long list of evangelical conmen who succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Few will remember him, but the progenitor of the prosperity gospel was a man known as Reverend Ike. His catchphrase, "You can't lose with the stuff I use," promised abundance to those who followed his formula. Essentially this entailed congregants offering up their scarce dollars in the expectation of monetary blessings in return. When he took up the offerings at his services, I remember him saying he didn't want to hear the clang of coins but the rustle of bills. He was also famous for saying that money is not the root of all evil, but the lack of money is.
If you want to see more of Ike's 'philosophy', just look up his sermons on YouTube, but he was essentially an early proponent of 'manifesting' one's reality rather than working hard for success.
And, of course, variations of that message became mainstays of the 'theology' of frauds like Jimmy Lee Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Benny Hinn, all who profited immensely from their cons. And even when they encountered scandal, they were able to reinvent themselves with some success.
Central to the resurrection of his ministry was the return to the airwaves. The Jim Bakker Show began broadcasting with a significantly different tone than the PTL Club. While still utilizing the medium of television, the production moved away from the variety-show format of the past. Instead, it focused on daily discussions regarding Biblical prophecy and current world events. This new platform allowed Bakker to speak directly to a niche audience that remained loyal despite his previous controversies.
Now, instead of hawking salvation, Bakker pushes survivalist paraphernalia in anticipation of the Apocalypse.
Have I proven my thesis? Of course not. Everything from the above could simply and clearly demonstrate Stephen Maher's observations, expressed another way via the ignorance, credulity and rudimentary thinking skills. of the marks faithful and the cultists.
But that these conmen can flourish in America surely suggests that there is something within their culture nurturing this kind of exploitation. It would seem the American psyche has many dark corridors.
Here is Canada, we have had enough situations over the years to know what can happen when privatization prevails. There was the tainted water Walkerton disaster. There were many deaths in for-profit nursing homes during the COVID crisis. Let's face it. When investors enter such sectors, they expect and demand profits, often at the expense of safety, staffing, and, worst of all, the people these utilities and facilities serve.
Given that the Carney government seems to be pursuing a course of privatization, at least in terms of national airports, we need to be reminded that those who invest in our assets are motivated only by one imperative: stakeholder profit.
Although the following story is from the United States, it serves as a sobering reminder that the cost of privatization may be one too high to pay.
Here is the latest from The Mound of Sound. Thanks, Mound:
When will Americans come to their senses? When the pandemic hit, Trump gave false assurances that there was nothing to worry about. It wasn't worse than a bad bout of the flu. When spring arrived it would disappear.
Many Americans listened to him and paid for it with their lives.
A study published in The Lancet: "Assessments published around early 2021 concluded that U.S. mortality would have been roughly 40% lower had the country matched the average performance or per-capita death rates of other wealthy G7 nations, accounting for roughly 200,000 preventable deaths during the peak phases of 2020.
"Broader Comparative Analyses: Extended epidemiological evaluations and congressional investigations argued that a robust national strategy involving standardized testing, consistent mask messaging, and coordinated federal guidelines could have averted upwards of 400,000 deaths as the total toll climbed through late 2020 and early 2021.
The 9/11 attacks claimed 3,000 lives. Compare that to Trump's 400,000.
Now that the United States is getting hammered by climate breakdown - severe storm events of increasing frequency, intensity and duration, droughts and floods, Trump's response is to denounce climate change as a hoax. It's a figment of your imagination.
So we turn to the dangers of runaway artificial intelligence. The best and the brightest warn that it could destroy our civilization. They call for the rapid implementation of guardrails to prevent AI from going rogue and turning on humanity.
Trump's response - it's another hoax. Ignore it.
Is this your Thelma & Louise moment? Wake up America. He's killing you - and perhaps the rest of us also.
