Category Archives: 3- SOLVING WORLD PROBLEMS

POLITICALLY CORRECT INJUSTICE

 

In the Canadian National News today, yet another high profile man is accused of sexual misconduct.  Despite no charges being laid by police, meager checking of facts, and an anonymous accuser, he is immediately fired from his job, and publicly disgraced.  Decades of hard work building a remarkable life,  gone in an instant.

In our hast to correct some long standing politically incorrect (or “PC”) social injustices, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law has been replaced with trial by media.   If that’s not bad enough, competition for viewers is driving even the most conservative media outlets to alter context and omit facts to sensationalize a story.  The result is a toxic culture that takes away the basic rights of the innocent.

Sexual misconduct and the “me too” movement have become the latest PC topics, it along with racism and discrimination often disproportionally dominate the news.   On Jan 12 in Toronto, despite a student being murdered on his way home from school it was a racism story about a girl claiming to have her religious clothing cut by an unknown attacker that headlined the national news.  All levels of government including the Prime Minister were quick to comment on it, condemning the attack and the person that did it,  vowing to use all resources available to quickly apprehend the perpetrator.  A few days later, after proper investigation by police it was found to be a hoax and never happened.  Luckily in this case an innocent suspect did not have their life ruined.

Other ways we try to correct injustices are also questionable but not so obvious.  In 2015, Our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau was elected on a platform of being politically correct and fairness for all Canadians. In an effort to make government more fair and appear less sexist he set out to appoint his cabinet of being equal in gender, 15 men and 15 women.   Instead of appointing who is most qualified regardless of gender, he chose to correct a sexism problem with sexism. Hiring someone for the sole reason they are a women is no different then not hiring someone for the sole reason they are a women.

When it comes to some PC injustices “We will not tolerate it” is an expression frequently heard.  It is this intolerance that is taking away our basic right of freedom of speech through fear.  In a recent Facebook post, following a list of legitimate political concerns was written “Have the guts to repost this?”.  Their are some that will call this article sexist or racist for merely criticizing the unfair methods we handle these PC injustices.

Aside from promoting hatred, it’s important for everyone to feel free to express their opinions.  Changing sexist and racist views can only be done with dialogue, not condemnation.  The only thing worse then “sexist and racist views” is suppressed “sexist and racist views”.  I can’t help wonder if, and how much, suppressed views of how politically correct  problems were dealt with in the US contributed to the election of Donald Trump.

Let me make it clear, sexual misconduct, racism and discrimination are not only big problems in society today but in many cases a crime. They should be treated like all crimes and reported to police.    After a proper investigation if enough evidence exists, charges should be laid.  Injustices that are not against the law should be dealt with through litigation in the courts and be reflected  in future laws.  Its important to realize that changing peoples opinions can not be forced overnight, especially when unfair means are used.

As we struggle to find new ways to correct the unacceptable injustices that remain between us and a fair society for all, we need to make sure that by taking a step forward we are not taking 2 steps back.

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

IS RACISM THE PROBLEM? STEREOTYPING AND WHY THE DIFFERENCE MATTERS.

These days, racism is considered one of the biggest problems in the world.   Ignorance they say is the cause, but maybe the greater ignorance is our refusal to study and better understand what has become a very delicate issue.  I have a hard time believing there are still that many people in Canada that think one race is superior to another.  Is stereotyping being confused with racism?  What if stereotyping was the cause of the majority of acts we considered racist?  What if there was a way to change it?

First we need to understand the difference between the two.  Racism is defined as the idea that one race is superior to another.  Stereotyping is a preconceived notion about a group of people based on an individual’s experience with that group.

What if racism is learned and reinforced through culture and upbringing?  No question, racism was a huge problem in Canada during black segregation back in the 1940’s.  Also a strong example that shows how the power of the cultural environment we grow up in can blind us in the way we think.   On the other hand, what if stereotyping is not learned through culture but rather a natural learning function of the human brain?  I’m not saying racism is still not a problem, but how much of what we consider racist today is actually stereotyping?

Imagine you are walking down a dark secluded street alone.  You hear someone coming up behind you fast.  You turn around to see who it is.  If given a choice, of the two men below, who would you rather it be?

If you said it doesn’t matter, and you are being honest with yourself, congratulations, you are not guilty of stereotyping.  For the rest of us that probably picked the guy on the right, ask yourself, why?  In most cases it comes down to the way they are dressed.  Our brain stereotypes the type of people they are by using limited personal knowledge and experience of the kind of people that dress that way.  But the fact is, the guy on the left could turn out to be the friendliest person you have ever met and the guy on the right could be carrying a gun and out to rob you.  Even if we’re aware that we are stereotyping, most people can’t help feeling more frightened by the guy on the left.  Evidence that shows how stereotyping can reach deep into our subconscious.

Stereotyping doesn’t just apply to how we dress it also can be on what kind of car we drive, our mannerisms, how we talk, where we live, our jobs, practically everything.  There are even forms of accepted stereotyping such as car insurance where premiums are partially based on stereotyping by age, gender, and where we live.

If the human brain stereotypes in so many different areas, is it not logical that it does so with culture?  Most people won’t admit they may still stereotype cultures in fear of being called raciest.  However, try searching “comedians stereotyping” on You Tube.  Comedians, usually of stereotyped minority groups, can still make jokes that would be considered racist and not tolerated coming from anyone else.  Did you laugh?  Does laughing mean you identify with it?

Every country has its own unique culture.  Does our brain actually stereotype against race, or the culture it associates with that race?

If two families from different races and cultures adopted babies from the others race and culture, what stereotypical cultural values would each of them have when they grew up?

Once learned over time, cultural values can take years, even generations to change. Here in Canada, this coupled with a high amount of immigration, helps to bolster cultural stereotyping.  Its not just cultures of foreign countries that are stereotyped,  micro cultures within Canada also exist based solely on demographics.   Whether you were brought up in the country, city, or a specific province, everyone is stereotyped.  The most extreme micro culture is in the bad areas of cities, often with high crime, gangs, drugs and violence.  It is these areas that seem to be the biggest problem with stereotyping culture being confused with race.

So how do we fix it and provide a better equality for all?

Stereotyping itself is bad enough but the greatest injustice happens when someone has prolonged exposure to only a small negative part of a culture and their brain stereotypes it to the entire culture.

For the last 2 years it seems every second night on the news they broadcasted a Muslim terror attack somewhere in the world.  For people that have little or no other contact with Muslim culture it has built up a deep rooted negative stereotype.  Suppose on the news, for the past two years instead of a terrorist attack, they only had stories of the many positive things in the Muslim culture.  Would Muslims have a positive stereotype?  I’m not saying to change the news but to understand the effect it has on people.  What would happen if when the news broadcasted a terrorist attack, they also made a point to also include a positive story on Muslim culture somewhere in the same broadcast?  Would that subconsciously reduce a build up of negative stereotyping?

Law enforcement and stereotyping is also a big problem both within Canada as well as other Countries.  When officers constantly work the same bad micro cultural areas that are predominantly one race,  it’s understandable how a stereotype of that culture can be mistaken with race.  What would happen if they alternated, working one week in a bad micro culture area and the next week in a better micro cultural area containing people of the same race?

Understanding and more research on how the brain stereotypes is key.  The more we understand on how the human brain stereotypes the better the solutions we will come up with to create a more equal and fair society for all.  If stereotyping is shown to be a natural process of the human brain that extends into our subconcious, treating it like racism and calling it ignorance, condemning it and assuming it will go away isn’t the solution.

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

IS OUR STANDARD OF LIVING ON THE BACKS OF THE LESS FORTUNATE?

1986.057

I had just unpacked after returning from a trip to a third world Country.  As the TV  played in the background I tried to comprehend what I had just experienced.  The poor living conditions, lack of food, opportunity, and health care, makeshift houses with dirt floors, it all seemed unfair just because they were born in a different place then me.  Somehow my focus shifted to the TV show being broadcast, it was a doggie fashion show from LA.  Dogs of the wealthy were in a competition, being walked down the runway dressed in designer outfits worth thousands of dollars and collars imbedded with precious stones and diamonds.  What I experienced at that moment was much harder to comprehend.

In Canada the cost alone of mailing a letter within our Country with Canada Post is $1.00.  For the same amount of money we can buy an item at a dollar store consisting of:

  • the cost of  dozens of individually manufactured parts
  • plus the cost of shipping of those parts to an assembly factory
  • plus the cost of assembling and packaging the final product for sale
  • plus  the cost of shipping that product from the other side of the globe to Canada
  • plus the cost of maintaining a retail business outlet and employees in Canada where the item is sold at $1.00 for a profit.

(Canada post reposted a 31 million dollar loss in the second quarter of 2015)

Whether it be companies moving to Mexico, outsourcing to India, or the estimated 170 million child labor’s working long hours in appalling conditions for our designer clothes, how can we justify taking advantage of these people to put diamond collars on our dogs.

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

ARE WE FALLING BEHIND IN EVOLUTION?

ARE WE FALLING BEHIND IN EVOLUTION

From the beginning of life on Earth all species have evolved through the process of natural selection. With natural selection only the strongest of each species survived to reproduce and pass on their unique genetics to there young.  If the  gene combination between the male and female was not favorable the offspring would not survive, but if it was good, a healthy, strong, disease resistant offspring would survive to reproduce again.  Over time the species would gradually evolve.  For hundreds of thousands of years humans have been no exception, until now.

How will the rapid and continuing advances in Medical Science over the last 100 years effect the genetics of our future generations?

Is medical science making us sicker?

Out of all the people close to you, take a moment to think about how many would not still be alive if not for recent advances in medical science such as asthma treatments, cancer treatments, antibiotics, surgeries etc.? The fact is medical science has saved a dramatic amount of lives but of all the people saved it has not done anything to change the genetics that caused the problems in the first place.  Are weak and disease prone genes being passed on to our children causing them to be sicker and develop even more medical problems?  Are we slowly becoming weaker as a population?  Elementary schools have already shown a dramatic increase in the average number of students off sick on any given day as compared to 25 years ago.  Is this just the beginning of what will be an ever increasing trend in the future?

Some might argue that there is no problem, people are living well into their 80’s now, but when you think about it people in their 80’s now were born back in the 1930’s. Their parents would have been born in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s back when Medical science was not nearly as advanced as it is now and didn’t have such a profound effect on natural selection.  Being born with good healthy genes and having the benefits of modern medicine at a later age, these people could be on average one of the healthiest and longest living generations ever.  Will we soon start seeing a decline in the average life expectancy of future generations?

Is Medical Science keeping up?  We now have antibiotic resistant bacteria, superbugs, SARS, and most recently Ebola that has left scientists scrambling to find a cure.  As bacteria and viruses continue to evolve and we become weaker what’s next?  Will medical Science be able to keep up with our ever increasing genetic shortfalls?   At what costs?

In some third world countries where modern medicine is not widely available the process of natural selection still continues.  Are these people slowly becoming genetically stronger then the people in developed countries? If there was a new major global disease outbreak that science could not find a cure for quick enough are they more likely to survive?

Research into genetics and DNA is making dramatic differences in our lives today. We now have drought resistant crops, disease resistant livestock even apples that don’t go brown but when it comes to humans there is currently a moral barrier.  Some people believe experimenting and altering genes and DNA in humans is crossing the line and too much like playing god.  Have we already crossed the line? Does this line even exist or is it just our way of dealing with the current way we think?   Aside from going back to natural selection is gene and DNA altering the only way for us to continue to survive and evolve?

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

DOES EARTH HAVE CANCER? / SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT

edited credit photo courtesy of NASA - Copy.jpgCancer can not survive without a host.  In small numbers it goes basically undetected but as its numbers increase the effects begin to break down various systems of the host.  Eventually the cancer becomes so large in numbers the host can no longer survive and dies, and with it so does the cancer.

Are we the cancer of the Earth?

In the last 50 years the world population has more then doubled from 3.3 billion to 7.3 billion people.  At our current population the environment is already noticeably stressed.  Estimates show that the world population could reach 9 billion by 2050.  Even with breakthroughs in science how many people can the earth support?   10 billion?  15 billion?  500 billion?  At what point will we realize we cannot go on the way we are and how badly damaged will the environment be by then?  Will it be too late?

Cancer Cells have no idea that there ever increasing numbers will eventually kill there host, along with them.

Are we smarter then a cancer cell?

Evidence of how fast the population is growing is not hard to find. In Toronto Canada there are so many new condos going up it’s not uncommon to find 3 construction cranes close together. Solutions to Toronto Traffic Part 2.jpgDoes Earth have cancer 2.jpg

The city of Bradford 65km to the north of Toronto has seen hundreds of acres of new housing built over the last 10 years, the edge of which can be seen in the distance of this photo. In the next 2 years housing will cover all of the empty field shown.Does Earth have cancer 4.jpg

Tapping the brakes on world population

Raising a child is one of the greatest and most fulfilling basic things in life and no one should be denied the experience, however our current mind set that large families our enviable has to change and changing our mind set and values takes time.  If the average family had only 1 or 2 children the world population would begin to decline. Even if the average amount of children per family were 2,  the population would no longer increase.  No one should be told how many children they are allowed to have but through education and government incentives on a national and global level people need to be encouraged to have smaller families.  Our increasing population is by far the single greatest threat to ourselves and the environment, it is also the easiest thing to fix.

Currently in Canada the government is still encouraging large families and offers thousands of dollars in tax savings for every child you have, in effect paying Canadians to have more children. What would happen if the government announced over the next ten years these tax savings would not change for the first child, be reduced by one half for the second child and nothing for any additional children? Would Canadians reconsider how many children they are going to have?  If not, what if the money the government saved from this was given as a form of tax credit to the families that just had one child or no children?  It’s hard to say right now what and how much it would take in government incentives to get the average family size down to a sustainable level and no doubt incentives would vary between countries.  Could there be other benefits to this kind of government policy?  Would financial incentives to have less children also possible reduce the number of unwanted or abused children?  Would having less children result in better care for the ones we have?   The sooner we start, the more time we have to learn and adjust and the easier the transition will be.

Governments also need to do more when it comes to contraception. Young people need to be educated before the age they become sexually active.  Affordable methods of contraception need to be made available to everyone and more research into new reliable methods needs to be done. The number of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies needs to be reduced as close to 0 as possible.

Not only do we need time to adjust to the idea of smaller families, what about the economy? How would a slowing population growth effect the economy?  Doe’s  our current economy rely on the pyramid system requiring more and more people every year to keep going?  By a slow and gradual reduction in population growth we can hopefully avoid any major economic disasters.

We can no longer think that we can sit back and as long as we recycle, conserve energy, use green products and green companies that everything will be  fine.  The fact is unless we can start to control our population now all other efforts are for nothing.  In the 5 minutes  it took you to read this article there are over 700 more people on earth. By this time tomorrow there will be another 200,000.

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

(photo of Earth courtesy of NASA)