The Horror Of Uncertainty

I am convinced that, as a species, we have an innate aversion to uncertainty. Rather than admit to some very real facts of life, contingency and complexity, we prefer to cling to the illusion that all problems are solvable if only we have the right people leading us. Unfortunately, the 'right people' are seldom fit for the job.

Hence the appeal of demagogues like Donald Trump and PP, both of whom make life sound so easy. "Make America Great Again" and "Axe the Tax" and "Let's Bring It Home" readily come to mind as taglines by and for the simple-minded.

Lord knows that our world is beset with chaos from which we would like to hide. Raging conflict in the Middle East, intractable war between Ukraine and Russia, civil wars in Africa are but three examples. Unfortunately, and this is a profound failure of political leadership, we are urged to see such conflicts in binary terms, the "good guys" versus "the bad guys". I can't think of a better recipe for the prolongation of such chaos.

But one need not look to the world stage to see this aversion to uncertainty. Here in Ontario, our populist premier, Doug Ford, continues to ride high in the polls. To listen to Doug, so much of the domestic chaos we bear witness to on a daily basis is eminently solvable. Are you homeless? Then get off your ass and get a job. Traffic congestion got you down? Let's build a tunnel and stop building bike lanes. 

Things are simple when you are simple. Unfortunately, our collective passion for certainty only encourages the reckless rhetoric and sophomoric solutions offered by people like Ford et al. One of the latest examples of this is the Ontario government's response to a very serious problem investigated by the Toronto Star: the plight of Ontario's most vulnerable children with complex needs in care. 

Ontario is failing its most vulnerable children. A broken system is leaving kids with complex mental health and developmental needs unable to get medical help and supports — and pushing families to the brink. 

The series includes details about how kids are being housed in office buildings, Airbnbs, etc., because Children's Aid Societies lack the resources, both in monetary and personnel terms, to adequately safeguard them. And they are getting little help from the province.

CAS leaders say the problems extend beyond the child welfare system and they’re demanding both an immediate emergency response and commitment to long-term systemic change. It’s far past time, they say, for the provincial government to confront the crisis.

“We’re yelling at the top of our lungs that we have a five-alarm fire and it feels like the intervention (from the government) is: here are some batteries for a smoke detector,” said Derrick Drouillard, executive director of Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society.

If you were to read the series, you would know that this is a complex problem to which the bromide of certainty is inapplicable, but that has not stopped Mr. Ford from trying his best to reduce it to its lowest common denominator.

Ford said his government has increased funding to children’s aid societies, but alleged some are abusing taxpayer money rather than properly spending those funds on kids. 

“We’re hearing nightmare stories about the abuse of taxpayers’ money — I’ve heard stories of some of these agencies working in Taj Mahals. They’re paying rent — $100,000 for rent,” Ford said when asked about the issue at an unrelated announcement Wednesday morning in East York.

Not everyone is comforted by the premier's 'analysis'.

Irwin Elman, who served as Ontario’s child and youth advocate from 2008 to 2019, said he was angered by the Premier’s comments Wednesday.

“To think that this crisis across the sectors is in any way about the mismanagement of money — and will be solved by addressing the mismanagement, if it exists — is dangerous and puts children at risk. Pure and simple,” Elman said.

Unfortunately, "pure and simple," aided and abetted by an often complicit electorate, is exactly what Ford and his fellow travellers are offering. And until more people do the hard work of thinking, analyzing and voting responsibly, nothing will change.

 

Living In A Void

Maybe I am in a bit of a mood today, but I can't help but be disdainful of those who live in a news void. Even if you don't subscribe to a newspaper, there are plenty of sources that can keep you reasonably well-informed, be it Google News, the CBC website, The Guardian, etc., etc. And I have no patience with the excuse that people are too busy making ends meet to know what is going on around them. To live in ignorance is to live in a void, one that can be unscrupulously manipulated by others.

What prompts my criticism today is the rail lockout that has affected commuter lines, most notably seen in the cancellation of the Go train on the Milton line. Apparently, many were caught unaware.

Some commuters arrived Thursday morning at GO Transit stations along the Milton line, which cuts through Mississauga to Toronto's Union Station, only to learn service had been suspended.

"This is completely unacceptable, and we should have been informed earlier, said Om Sangekar, speaking outside the Cooksville GO station. "I'll definitely be late for work."

The larger point here, of course, is that if people cannot even keep themselves informed about events that have an immediate and local impact, what hope is there for them when it comes to issues that affect all of us? 

The spread of misinformation, whether through AI or fake news, is facilitated when one has no context by which to evaluate it. In our country, little PP exploits the void relentlessly and sometimes skillfully. To accept his version of 'reality,' we are a highly taxed and failing nation that has been led to the brink by Justin Trudeau and his merry band of men and women. Only PP can save us from falling over the edge, because he will surely "bring it home."

To a much worse degree, the same is happening in the United States. To hear Trump and his minions tell it, only he can save America from the abyss that awaits it should they choose the "radical Marxist" Kamala Harris.

Again, if you live in a void, defining the country in stark and absolutist terms has much appeal, especially since it saves you from the hard work that real, critical thinking entails. But in my view, you are a citizen in name only, since you choose to excuse yourself from any real participation in the duties that real citizenship requires.

That's the end of my little screed. Regular programming will resume soon.

 

Connecting The Dots

Were we abundantly blessed with critical-thinking skills, we would have no problem asking some serious questions about the direction in which Ontario is headed with Doug Ford at the helm. As well, we would be able to discern a pattern that suggests the premier is leading us nowhere good.

I am hardly the first to note that this Progressive Conservative government has been progressively and relentlessly paring down the revenues we need to fund our healthcare, our education system, our infrastructure and our social safety net; to be fair, this process long predates Ford's ascension. But since the time of Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution, it has only gotten worse.

• In the guise of helping 'the little guy',  Ford has kept extending a popular gas-tax cut that, while saving the average household about $130 per year, has thus far cost the treasury, since its inception in 2022, a total of  $3.2 billion. 
• Then, of course, there is the ending of licence plate renewal fees, again costing the treasure about $1.1 billion per year.
• Additionally, as I pointed out in a recent blog post, there is the war against the LCBO, a public institution that on average contributes about $2.5 billion to the provincial coffers.
• And on the expenditure side, it has been estimated that the early cancellation of the Beer Store agreement in order to get more product into private hands could cost upwards of $1 billion.

So where does all of this lead? To an impoverished public purse and a turn to the private sector to fill the void. 

Jordan Roberts writes of the move to put more alcohol into stores, now that the way has been paved for beer and premixed cocktails:

Having won this major battle for beer and wine revenue, Ontario’s big box stores and grocery stores will put additional energy into lobbying to sell spirits like gin, vodka and whiskey. “Hard liquor” is currently only sold at the LCBO or LCBO-licensed outlets. The inclusion of ready-to-drink products (like hard seltzer) in the announcement will help support industry’s argument that they should be allowed to sell all kinds of alcohol, because they are already selling products which include spirits.

The chains have also been lobbying for the right to be wholesalers and distributors of alcohol, taking advantage of their own integrated distribution systems and subsidiaries. Currently, only the LCBO and the Beer Store can run alcohol distribution in the province.

The fate of the LCBO becomes increasingly precarious, as the prospects of grocery and big-box store  profits soar, especially if one considers  the following:

Claudia Hepburn, who was appointed to the board of the LCBO in 2021, is Galen Weston’s first cousin. Galen Weston, of course, is the chairman of Loblaws’, and stands to benefit enormously from these changes. 

The there is the chair of the LCBO, Carmine Nigro,

a developer (CEO of Craft Development) who was hosted at the premier’s table at Kayla Ford’s wedding reception. Nigro’s company benefited from a number of MZOs (or Ministerial Zoning Orders, which are fast tracked zoning approvals) from Ford’s government. Prior to MZOs being issued to his company, Nigro was also vice president of the PC Ontario Fund, a fundraising arm of the Ontario PC party. Nigro is also part of the controversial scheme at Ontario Place, as chair of the Ontario Place Corporation. 

Thanks to available public sources, all of these facts are fairly accessible to the public. But it is up to all of us to connect the dots to see the larger picture, one that Jordan Roberts concludes is pretty grim:

Within this strategy, a key tactic is making sure government coffers are empty, so that government cannot provide services to its constituents, ensuring the only options for services are private ones. In that regard, the Ford government’s moves on alcohol sales are not only a gift to friends and donors in the private sector, and a way to reduce the influence of labour unions, but another nail in the coffin for Ontario’s government revenues.

Thinking Clearly

Those who read this blog with any regularity likely know that I make frequent reference to the importance of critical thinking. As I have said before, it is an ideal toward which I am always striving, never claiming to have perfected the skill.

When I was teaching high school seniors, we did a unit on Orwell and the use of language combined with an examination of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies. I would have the students clip things out of the newspapers (yes, they were still fairly widely-read in those days), and they would tell the rest of the class what language errors and logical fallacies they found. The results were mixed, as there is a certain maturity, intellectual level and contextual knowledge needed for sustained critical analysis.

Nowadays, given the bombardment of arrant nonsense that social media and extreme websites embrace and spread, critical thinking is more important than ever; admittedly though, it goes against a strong and widespread inclination to indulge in what I call lazy thinking. 

Real thinking can be hard work, but the following helps in our efforts to spot and refute bad arguments.

1. Appeal to ignorance

This is when a lack of evidence is interpreted to mean a claim is real – rather than placing the burden of proof on the person making the claim. It's a fallacy that commonly underlines arguments for conspiracy theories. Ask one of the estimated 10 million-plus people who believe that lizards run the world about the evidence for their claim, for example, and they might counter, "Well, these lizards are too clever to leave any evidence – that's what makes this situation so dangerous! How can you be sure it's not true?" You might wind up scratching your head, but, hopefully, it's not because you've been persuaded; it's because they've set you the trap of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

 

 2. Ad hominem

This is a fallacy in which a claim is rejected on the basis of an aspect of someone's character, identity, motivations, or even the relationships they have with others. Think of the health professional who is told that they are only recommending vaccines because they must be a shill for Big Pharma, or the research of climate scientists being dismissed on the basis that they must be ideologically motivated.

3. Slippery slope -

This is the argument that taking one step, or putting into place one measure, will inevitably lead to more and more drastic measures – like an object sliding down a slippery slope. [It could be called the Domino Theory of the mind.] It's particularly common in debates over policy. Think of the argument that some opponents of same-sex marriage made against legalising it in places like the US or Europe. In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found that many people who were against the policy were persuaded by the argument that it would lead to greater sexual promiscuity across society, and threaten their own way of life. This particular argument is fallacious because, rather than debating the policy change itself (whether same-sex marriage should be legalised), the policy was dismissed because of the fear of its predicted outcome (the breakdown of traditional society).

4. Strawman

I see this one on social media, especially, all the time. It's misrepresenting the argument of the other side to make it seem more ridiculous, and therefore easy to defeat. Think of someone who puts forth a nuanced argument that excessive sugar intake may raise the risk of health issues like heart disease. A strawman response would be, "Oh, so what, sugar is killing everyone and should be outlawed? That's absurd!" This distorts the original argument, making it easier to defeat – a strawman.

 5. Appeal to authority

This pernicious argument holds that someone's credentials, fame or reputation alone prove that they must be right. If people perceive someone as an authority, they have an innate cognitive bias to assume they have expertise in all things (even subjects they have no background in). 

More problematic still is the version known as "appeal to irrelevant authority". Our tendency to believe something because, say, a celebrity states it, even if they have no expertise at all in the topic at hand – a classic tendency in today's influencer-obsessed world. But "irrelevant authorities" aren't always so obvious. Take arguments about climate change, for example, when sceptics quote someone like a theoretical physicist as an expert – despite the fact that theoretical physics generally has very little to do with climate science.

 

6. False dichotomy

Presenting a complex scenario as if there are only two either-or, often opposing options, rather than multiple options. Think of that famous, often-recycled and even ancient phrase, famously used by President George W Bush shortly after 9/11: "You're either with us or against us." It implied to the international community that they had only two options – back the United States completely, including in its invasion of Afghanistan, or consider themselves enemies. In reality, of course, there were a spectrum of other options nations could take, and kinds of allies (or enemies) they could be.  

7. Whataboutism (also called whataboutery)

Sometimes considered a type of red herring – a logical fallacy that uses unrelated information to redirect away from the argument's flaws – whataboutism is intended to distract attention. It describes when, normally in response to an accusation or a question, someone responds with their own accusation. 

In politics, one of the most infamous examples has been when Russia is accused of human rights violations, and its leaders respond "Well, what about the West?". While a whataboutism can serve to illustrate hypocrisy, it deflects from the original argument.

There is no magic elixir that inoculates us against the ignorance so pervasive in the world today, and the problems will only be compounded by the increasing use of AI. Whether it will prove a winning or a losing war remains to be seen, but do we have any real choice other than to fight the good fight?

 

 

What The Transcript Shows

 

My previous post addressed a concern that the media are writing narratives for us, telling us what to think, creating a consensus that may be at variance with reality. I cited the conclusions drawn about the Liberal loss in the Toronto by-election of Toronto-St. Paul and the debate between Joe Biden and Don Trump.

A producer of nine federal leaders' debates in Canada, Mark Bulgutch, offers his view of the American debate, observing that if one were just to read the transcript and not fixate on Biden's weak performance, one might come away with a different perspective.

Compare the content, not the performance, and then decide who should be president.

For example, when Trump spoke about abortion, he claimed that Democrats, “will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth — after birth.”

Biden responded, “He’s lying. That is simply not true.”

Trump: “Every legal scholar, throughout the world, the most respected, wanted it [abortion law] brought back to the states.”

Biden: “The idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying, we’re going to turn civil rights back to the states, let each state have a different rule.”

Trump on illegal immigrants: “We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world — not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere. All over the world, they’re pouring in.”

Biden: “I’m not saying no terrorist ever got through. But the idea they’re emptying their prisons, we’re welcoming these people, that’s simply not true. There’s no data to support what he said.”

Trump: “And because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen.”

Biden: “Every single thing he said is a lie, every single one.”

As I said in my post, Biden did, despite his muddling performance, had policy on his side, while Trump relied on his usual strategy of total fabrication.

When Trump was asked about climate change, the best he could do was, “I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it. We had H2O.”

Biden pounced. “The idea that he is claiming to have done something that had the cleanest water? He had not done a damn thing with the environment. The only existential threat to humanity is climate change. And he didn’t do a damn thing about it.”

Biden skewered Trump time after time. On Trump’s election denial: You’re a whiner. When you lost the first time, you continued to appeal and appeal to courts all across the country. Not one single court in America said any of your claims had any merit.”

On Trump’s accommodation of white supremacists: “What American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields, carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic bile, carrying swastikas, were fine people?”

And finally, on why those who have seen Trump close-up now flee from what they saw: “His own vice president — look, there’s a reason why 40 of his 44 top cabinet officers refused to endorse him this time. They know him well. They served with him. Why are they not endorsing him?”

And I have nothing to add to Bulgutch's conclusion:

Yes, Joe Biden had some truly awful moments during the debate. But I’m not sure a president makes his toughest decisions in two-minute sound bites. Judge what he said, not how he said it.

 

 

Tell Me A Story

Regular readers of this blog will likely know that I have great faith in the so-called legacy media, especially newspapers. The reasearch and thought that go into articles and columns far surpass much of what one will find on the internet, especially that very poisoned segment known as social media. However, there are times when lazy thinking and herd mentality supplant reasoned commentary in the mainstream media.

I have been especially mindful of that fact given two recent events: the Liberal loss in the Toronto-St Paul by-election, and the Biden-Trump debate. A consensus narrative quickly emerged that has quickly become political orthodoxy, denying people the opportunity to analyse these two events for themselves.

By all accounts, the by-election loss was a devastating judgement of Justin Trudeau. Almost all of the ensuing stories concluded that it is time for the Prime Minister to go. While there is no doubt that his plummeting popularity played a significant role in the results, there are also other factors to consider, factors the press seems loathe to consider. 

First, there were over 80 candidates to choose from, giving voters the formidable task of wading through a jumble of names. Rather than enhancing democracy, this stunt served to make a joke out of the electoral process, as almost none of the alternatives were serious candidates. That the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church. lost by a mere 500 votes seemed to merit barely a notice.

Second, by-elections are traditionally seen, not so much as a referendum on the party in power but as a safe way to take them to task for perceived deficiencies; they are not necessarily an augury of future general election results. Instead, the narrative we have been handed almost exclusively focusses on Trudeau and his unfitness to lead the Liberals into the next election. While I am not suggesting there isn't room for such speculation, the fact that this is the sole interpretation of the result should disturb all of us capable of thinking for ourselves.

The same might be said about the Biden-Trump debate. While Biden's performance was not good, again, the media are presenting his performance as proof he will lead the Democrats to disaster in the November election. Having watched the entire debate, while Biden moments were indeed cringe-worthy, he did offer reminders of Democratic policies that have benefitted wide swaths of Americans, but did so in a less than strong, forthright way. On the other hand, Don Trump let loose with his usually litany of lies, but the attitude of the press seemed to be, "Well, that's just Donald being Donald." And, of course, little was said about his refusal to answer the questions asked as he indulged in efforts to refute previously-made points by Biden.

There are no doubt many amongst us who want to be told what to think. I am not one of them, and I am sure there are many more who prefer to exeercise their critical faculties rather than be force-fed what can only be described as media group-think.

Stupidity: The Epidemic

 

For those who are congenitally stupid, I have much sympathy. For those who are stupid yet think they are the smartest person in the room, I have only disdain. And it is the latter that this post seeks to address.

Although I have written on this topic before, stupidity's myriad manifestations continue to hold me in a perhaps unhealthy grip. But I know that I am not the only one who is both fascinated and repelled by this subject. Last week, on one of my regular walks with a few of my retired colleagues, all of whom actually read and are aware of the world around them, the topic of stupidity as it relates to Trump's followers arose. As is always the case when we gather, we had a spirited discussion as to possibly explanations of the cult for whom the Chief Grifter can do no wrong.

Later that day, one of them sent me an article by a neuroscientist named Bobby Azarian who offers this interesting definition of stupidity:

Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.

Indeed, to add to the above, I would say that having some humility about our own limitations is part and parcel of being critical thinkers.  Thus, for example, I accept the scientific consensus on Covid vaccines, a topic that so many with no expertise claim to oppose because they read something contrary on the internet or in a chat group. It is a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, whereby people think they are smarter than they are and know things that others don't. As Azarian says, they are ignorant of their own ignorance.

The problem is especially worrisome because such people tend to be attracted to confident, strong-man leaders.

For example, Donald Trump — despite not having any real understanding of what causes cancer — suggested that the noise from wind turbines is causing cancer (a claim that is not supported by any empirical studies). It is well documented that on topics ranging from pandemics to climate change, Trump routinely dismissed the opinions of the professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding those phenomena, because he thought that he knew better. It’s bad enough that politicians like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene don’t recognize their own ignorance and fail to exercise the appropriate amount of caution when making claims that can affect public health and safety — but what is really disturbing is that they are being celebrated for their over-confidence (i.e., stupidity).

I hope you will find an opportunity to read the entire article, but I shall close with one more excerpt from it:

This new theory of stupidity I have proposed here — that stupidity is not a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but a lack of awareness of the limits of one’s intelligence or knowledge — is more important right now than ever before, and I’ll tell you why. The same study by Anson mentioned above showed that when cues were given to make the participants “engage in partisan thought,” the Dunning-Kruger effect became more pronounced. In other words, if someone is reminded of the Republican-Democrat divide, they become even more overconfident in their uninformed positions. This finding suggests that in today’s unprecedently divided political climate, we are all more likely to have an inflated sense of confidence in our unsupported beliefs. What’s more, those who actually have the greatest ignorance will assume they have the least!

And in this American election year, that is very, very worrisome. 

 

Stupidity Is The Real Threat

There is an article in today's Star about the threat to Canadian democracy posed by artificial intelligence. However, I can't help but wonder if the real threat is human stupidity.

Raisa Patel writes:

Whether it’s manipulated video, voices or text, Canada is at risk of seriously endangering its democratic institutions if it doesn’t get a grip on regulating artificial intelligence, one of the world’s foremost AI leaders warned Monday.

The use of such tactics — which are becoming increasingly common at a time when high-stakes elections are set to be held around the globe — “can fool a social media user and make them change their mind on political questions,” said Yoshua Bengio, scientific director of the Mila-Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute. 

“There's real concern about the use of AI in kind of politically oriented ways that go against the principles of our democracy.”

Bengio, who is also the co-chair of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s AI advisory council, was speaking to the House of Commons industry committee as it studies a bill seeking to reign in and regulate the rapidly developing technology. 

Given that fake videos and voices have now reached the point where they are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, it is sad that there is no inoculation available against human credulity. 

On the other hand, however, is it really too much to expect people to inspect their sources? Surely it is one of the 21st century's greatest ironies that we live in a time when the world's information and knowledge is available literally at our fingertips, yet many people choose to use the internet simply to verify their own ignorance and prejudices. Instead of checking a reputable media source or even Snopes to see whether something is true, there are those that will rely only on their Telegram channels, Q-Anon, Facebook groups and other discredited sources, happy to label and dismiss mainstream media as lamestream media. 

That is capitulation, not critical thinking, and it appears to be endemic. I found myself thinking more about this last night as I watched the news about the latest Trump outrage. Apparently, even though a private citizen, he is giving direction to Congress to block a southern border deal because he wants to make it an election issue. While not a perfect bill, it becomes painfully obvious that a problem near and dear to so many Americans, and a clear Achilles Heel for Joe Biden, takes a back seat to the political machinations of Trump and the gutless Republicans who pay him complete obeisance.

In a normal world where people thought deeply about such things, all of this would be so obvious. Yet the MAGA crowd and others will undoubtedly let weak and corrupt politicians do their thinking for them. 

In Canada, things are not much different. Increasing numbers prefer PP's aphorisms ("Axe the tax", "Jail, not bail") to real policy discussion. Sadly, no legislation regulating artificial intelligence here can do a thing about a dearth of natural intelligence. As I have said many times before, we truly are a deeply flawed species.

Getting Things Done

                              

Those who prize quick decisions and action will no doubt applaud the likes of the Doug Ford government. As pointed out in my previous post, the premier and his coterie are not very often burdened by critical thinking. And that, as I tried to point out, has consequences.

Star letter-writers also share their misgivings over this kind of 'governance' in the following.

Someone should remove Premier Doug Ford’s supply of napkins and pens before he comes up with another plan to “save” taxpayers’ money, such as inviting 18 year olds to skip secondary education and join the police force right after graduation; knocking down the Ontario Science Centre and build housing on the ravine. So what if they get flooded every spring. Think of the view!

Let Therme Group build a spa on Ontario Place that 99 per cent of Ontarians won’t be able to afford, but won’t cost the taxpayers a dime, except for $200 million to clear the land and $450 million for underground parking. And those are only preliminary estimates.

Cut funding to hospitals so they can’t keep up with the need for cataract surgeries, but pay private clinics more per procedure than OHIP covers.

And those are only the most recent unplanned plans.

I can’t wait to read about his next great idea in tomorrow’s Star.

Carol Libman, Toronto 

Let us examine the Ford legacy 20 years down the road.

The Ontario Science Centre will be no more and Toronto will have lost a significant piece of architecture that could have been adjusted to continue its role in promoting science. In its place there will be a mass of grotty highrises with few if any subsidized units, much to the delight of developers.

On Ontario Place the wonderful spa which took twice as long to build and cost well-over budget failed as a business venture and was converted to a casino after structural additions. Both the spa and the casino were found to have guarantees from the province to cover revenue shortfalls.

Part of Ontario Place was converted to parking for the casino because water seepage made underground parking a non-starter.

RIP Ontario Place.

Peter Anastasiades, Markham

 The Toronto Star correctly points out that most of the Ontario Science Centre land is composed of hazardous and floodplain lands. Good luck to the Doug Ford government and a developer in trying to secure a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permit for new housing development over these lands!

During Hurricane Hazel in 1954, many houses in the Don Valley were swept away by flooding and hence the conservation authority followed up by preparing floodplain mapping of the Don Valley to ensure that future housing would not be exposed to such destruction. There is also the concept of “setback” zones from floodplains.

Ministers within Ford’s government need to learn how to interpret floodplain mapping before suggesting new housing over hazardous and floodplain lands.

Jim McEwen, retired civil engineer, Bowmanville

In the annals of the oxymoron, known as Ontario Government intelligence, this could rank near the top.

The plan is to build the New Ontario Line subway running from Ontario Place to The Ontario Science Centre. But now, may also include moving the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place and building housing in its present location.

The Ontario Science Centre is a gem, nestled in a beautiful valley. By all means renovate it as needed to keep it relevant, but leave it where it is. Why not simply build high density housing above and around the new 2,700 space parking lot at Ontario Place, leaving the new residents closer to downtown.

Ian Alter, North York

Envelopes are best reserved for their original purpose, not as a medium for calculating public policy.  Expect no course corrections in the near- future from this obdurate regime, however.

 

It's All Connected

It isn't hard to come to the realization that one of the common denominators in almost all of the existential threats currently facing humanity is our flawed natures; human folly, shortsightedness and credulity have much to answer for. Climate change, resource depletion and pandemics readily come to mind as examples of what our collective folly has led to.

Were we apt students of life, we would realize that our refusal to think critically makes us our own worst enemy. Connecting the dots should not be the gargantuan task that it is for far too many people. 

Today's Star examines the inevitability of another pandemic and the things scientists are doing to prepare for it. One such scientist is Gerry Wright, a McMaster professor in biochemistry and biomedicine, who identifies a major impediment in meeting the next pandemic.

Gerry Wright feels confident that science will find the solutions to the next pandemic.

Perhaps not as quickly as we’d like. And not without obstacles. The race to fight COVID, which drew on decades of research, revealed how quickly scientists could rally.

But the flip side to these successes is the corresponding and deeply alarming rise in misinformation online.

 “The thing that terrifies me is that a person with an iPhone can think they’re an expert,” he says. “That people think their opinions matter just as much as those of people who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding science — and that this is now almost a widely accepted concept — is going to result in a super-dangerous future.”

The claims of false cures, promoted by people like Trump, served as a major stumbling block in attacking Covid.

Wright says he first became alarmed in 2020, when then U.S. president Donald Trump flouted the advice of top science agencies by touting the unproven benefits of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID.

He says his worries deepened the following year when ivermectin, an antiparasitic medicine used to treat some human conditions and which is also a veterinary drug, was falsely hyped as a COVID miracle cure, even as effective vaccines were being rolled out.

“I just knew that we were in deep, deep trouble.”

While McMaster researchers worked flat out to find solutions for COVID, Wright says he knew it was equally pressing to combat misinformation.

He now heads the Global Nexus for Pandemics and Biologic Threats, a McMaster-led initiative that brings together scientists and medical researchers, along with experts in economics, political science and the social sciences. 

“I understand molecules. I don’t understand people,” says Wright, noting the hub will also provide interdisciplinary training for students, so they can think across typically siloed fields. 

One has to wonder if such efforts will be sufficient, given the new capacities for deception driven by A.I.-generated imagery and voice mimicking. And remember that there will always be those who will quite eagerly exploit such technology for their own diabolical ends.

As it has always been, the fate of humanity rests in our hands and in our minds. Not too much reason for optimism, is there?

 

 

Mr. Musk Unmasked

Once more, Unlearn16 reveals something important, and her observations I could not disagree with. Yesterday, she pierced the facade perpetrated by the Ford government about the soon-to-be striking school support staff in Ontario. This time, she turns her laser-focus on Elon Musk and his purchase of Twitter. 

Well-worth the three-minute listen.