As all of our crises begin to compound on one another, are we about to confront another 2008-style timebomb? Or is my gloom a hangover from the last two years?
Jun 30, 2022·edited Jun 30, 2022Liked by Line Editor
I'm kind of an optimistic skeptic, if there is such a thing. I agree that there are a lot of red lights blinking, but I tend to see them in the context that we're going through a bit of a revolution that has to quite sorted itself out yet.
Technology is putting powerful tools in the hands of more and more people. That's happened relatively quickly -- like within my lifetime. But as these tools become ubiquitous, we're seeing they are morally neutral. They can provide a world's worth of information AND provide cheap distribution for massive amounts of disinformation. They can revolutionize entire industries, making them more efficient AND they can displace people's careers and kill the economies of communities. They can help solve challenges like pollution AND they can enable exponential growth in consumption that is entirely not sustainable.
We're at the crossroads where both wonderful and horrible things are possible. What's left is to build the kind of institutions that encourage the former and discourage the latter. We are wayyy behind on that and -- as an example -- our federal government's attempts at internet legislation demonstrates our policy folks have a long way to go to even understanding the challenge.
The interesting thing about this tech revolution is it does make it easier for ideas to also flow up. People and small groups can have big impacts. So, maybe part of the solution is to not wait for big, traditional institutions to figure this out (they are too slow!) and start thinking about what we all can do to make things better. The Line delivers something better than, say the op-ed/analysis side of The National Post. Maybe that's a good harbinger of where we need to go: smaller, closer to the action agencies that can act more effectively and faster.
If we can't figure this out, China is proving these same tools are wonderful for surveillance and autocracy, and I don't want to live like that!
I too am an optimist. Perhaps much of the current disfunction will lessen when we stop asking governments to do so much for us and figure out how to do it for ourselves.
Well said Tony. One point is that "What's left is to build the kind of institutions that encourage the former and discourage the latter. " I'm afraid that we've dismantled the institutions that worked in the past -- Community, Family, Faith. I'm not a religious person nor much of a community worker but I think for all we think of these as archaic institutions, they seemed to provide a better functioning society. In no way do I want to give a pass to the harms that religion has wrought or say that all families were happy or that communities had no bias or exclusionary rules. Sometimes though, the baby does get thrown out with the bathwater.
I think we do need community-level, grassroots institutions that encourage social cohesion. But, I doubt that looks like it once did -- it needs to acknowledge the world we live in today.
That's always been the case, though. For a long time 'family' tended to mean an extended family, including multiple generations. Post WW2, the term took on more of a nuclear family meaning (Mom, Dad and the kids). It continues to evolve and may mean the unit of people you can always rely on -- whether you are related to them or not. I suspect an aging population may find that co-habiting with close peers and taking care of each other may prove preferable for some than seniors institutions, at least for those who can manage it.
Same with community. It used to mean your (likely small, rural) town. Then, it might have meant your big-city neighbourhood, or suburbian communities built around activities (the curling league). Now, we find people both in real life and digitally, so communities might be geographical, interest-based, or both. Even The Line comment section is a community of sorts!
The fringe groups seem to have a lot of time on their hands and have found each other. Now, it's time for the rest of us to do likewise so we can find an appropriate civic balance!
I also note that the dysfunction tends to lie in government and politics, and not all governments at that. The private sector reacted fairly well throughout the pandemic: they figured out what they needed to do to continue operating and protect their workers, and they did it. There were hiccups and snarls, but we certainly didn't see widespread paralysis or dysfunction. It was much the same during the BC floods - 3 major highways cut off, but the logistics sector re-routed quickly. The provincial government response was also pretty good, although they engaged in some fairly gimmicky schemes regarding gas rationing.
Excellent take. I think we're in a storm right now that could get better or could get much much worse, and it's tough to know how long it will last, but I'm confident that the storm will eventually pass. And I think technology will be what makes it pass, as has been the case in previous historical stormy periods.
Jesus Jen. But I don’t disagree. We don’t seem to have leadership or feedback loops any more. The gain of function research that caused Covid is still taking place all over the world. I haven’t seen any attempt to address lack of resiliency in our supply chains that Covid highlighted. Most Canadians supported Trudeau’s appalling authoritarian actions against the convoy - as well as the wholesale gutting of Charter rights during Covid by all governments. We worry about global warming when we should be worried about this fall. We are the authors of our own misfortune and we going to get what we get and we should not be upset.
Not that it particularly matters, but your position appears to be inconsistent. On the one hand, you say that the government should curtail freedom in order to keep people safer (gain of function research) but when the government actually did curtail freedom in order to keep people safer (vaccine mandates and restrictions) it didn’t have the right to do so. The majority of Canadians supported government restrictions for the same reason you are opposed to gain of function research – they determined that they and their fellow citizens would be safer.
Canadians have no inviolable rights – so curtailing freedom in either case is within the purview of the government. This is because, as much as the Charter is about freedom, the key word is reasonable. Those of us supporting restrictions looked at comparative death rates and who (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) was going into ICU's and reasonably concluded that restrictions were in order.
For what it's worth -- the notion that gain of function research caused COVID-19 is -- at best -- an unproven theory. And, before panicking about gain of function research in general, in which scientists bestow new abilities on pathogens in order to study them (and, ideally, get ahead of what may happen in the wild), I'd like to have a better sense of both the benefits and risks. I did find this Nature article to be a useful overview on the debate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x.
Tony - I'm pretty confident that a bat virus that started in a city that has a lab that studies bat viruses - including using money from the US to do gain of function research on bat viruses (because it is illegal in the US) is the most plausible explanation for Covid. But even if it isn't - gain of function research is incredibly dangerous. If Covid even had a 5% death rate we'd all probably be dead now because the entire supply chain we rely on would break down. Truckers wouldn't drive to the city - physicians wouldn't show up for work. We would be dead from starvation and violence over resources. The world is going to end in a petri dish, from a rock from outer space, or from a giant volcanoe. We can't do much (yet at least) about the last two - but we can easily control the first. So what did we get from the scientific community? A wall of denial, misdirection and silencing. What about politicians? Health Authorities? Nothing.
So how do you explain 1919? We can speculate all we want about where it came from but there is lots of historical evidence of something like this being created naturally. Sure, someone in the lab could have had a brain fart and infected the world, but at this point, does it even matter? I say that because I refuse to believe, without hard evidence, that it was released on purpose...a true act of war.
I don't think it was released on purpose at all. I think it was just a lab accident. Frankly there is a lot more evidence here than mere speculation. The 1918 flu was a mutated version of a disease people already get. Gain of function takes diseases in other species that we don't get - or don't easily get - and then literally runs them through samples of human respiratory tissue over and over in a lab until a mutation is found that easily infects humans. The explanation that they create them so they can study them is very weak - because these were extremely unlikely to ever occur naturally in the first place. That is why it isn't permitted in the US - but obviously it shouldn't be permitted - or should be better regulated - everywhere. The reality is that millions of people died because of this type of research - but no one seems to be showing the slightest interest in learning anything from the incident.
That is definitely possible. I understand the concept of gain of function as well. It's possible. The cat is already out of the bag....there's no going back on the research. But until someone provides proof that it came from a lab....and I suspect I'll be long dead before it does.....it's just speculation.
Jun 30, 2022·edited Jun 30, 2022Liked by Line Editor
I'm a little older than you, Jen. As a father of four (three adults and one teenager) I too am struggling with the pending sense of doom you describe, and have to fight to not dwell too much on it during conversations with my kids. My farm/ranch childhood and adult self-employment in land & water protection (24 years in municipal government and 12 years as a private consultant) has left me with the sense that the 'real world' always triumphs over what we would like it to be / wish it was. In short, the facts of life don't give a s**t about anyone's feelings or opinions.
My philosophy differs from many (perhaps most) these days in that I fully expect the majority of people (including myself, alas) to act in selfish self-interest, most (not all) of the time. I think everyone has the capacity to be good - to act in an unselfish manner - i just believe that a majority of time, they don't. In my view, altruism is the exception to the rule of unconscious (or even conscious) selfishness. So many people I encounter seem to believe just the opposite - that most people are inherently good, kind, unselfish, altruistic humans most of the time, and just occasionally succumb to selfish lapses.
What I've noticed through my 50-odd years, however, is that when things get bad (really bad) it tends to bring out the best in a surprising number (though not all) people. Fires, floods, and other natural disasters come to mind. Even the pandemic showed this tendency, during the first few months. For a short time in early 2020, most of us really did feel like (in the now toxic line from Dr. Deena Hinshaw and other CMOH's) we were 'all in this together'.
However, the longer the pandemic (and government / health care system attempts to 'manage' it) went on, the more patience and tolerance for the situation (and each other) evaporated, bringing out the inherent selfishness I describe above, but in spades. It became clear that we were certainly NOT all in it together. Many public sector staff and large private businesses and their workers certainly fared better than private sector small businesses or self-employed individuals did.
On all sides of any debate you can think of, pandemic-related or otherwise, the selfishness lingers as we wade through the post-pandemic wreckage. Trust and patience are nearly gone, replaced by deep suspicion and fatalistic despair. Tribalism on any topic you could name is at an all time high in my life experience on a micro and macro level, spurred on by the countless tendrils of the internet like gasoline vapour interacting with open flames.
I think you're correct that we need to get outside and enjoy ourselves to the best of our ability (except the part where you advocate running up the credit card - don't do that, ever). I think you're also correct that we are entering the literal 'winter of our discontent' - it's going to get ugly. Debt will have to be repaid. Shortages will lead to much hardship. The facts of life will assert themselves, as they always do. It won't be pretty.
And yet......and yet.....humanity is also incredibly, amazingly resilient, as we've proven over and over again. Perhaps even some of that resliience can be tied to the inherent selfishness of individuals, which can lead to bursts of self-serving short-term inspiration that (often inadvertently) ends up to benefit us all in the medium to long term. Bad leadership will always ultimately fail (as it always has), and new leadership will emerge from the wreckage (as it always does) to lead us back out of the gloom towards a new hope for better times.
It has ever been thus. Our ancestors overcame challenges we can only dimly imagine in our current world. Our comforts have gradually made us forget the unforgiving facts of life. We will relearn the lessons - at considerable cost in the process - but we will again come to understand the facts of life.
So, I agree, enjoy your summer, and lets all try to stifle that innate selfishness, and be kind to each other, seeking to help others enjoy their summer as well.
Good piece Jen. I think your mood and thoughts mirror those of many of us ... along with your prescription of enjoying this summer any whichway you can.
If we're lucky, we'll ( the world) muddle through. If not, we're in for a long, painful slog through an unknowable, unrecognizable future.
I also share similar worries. It's a small comfort to know I'm not alone in that. It's also a comfort to take a vacation, seek out some nature, and enjoy our two-year-old's twoness. And re-read Cloud Atlas.
Jen, thank you for going deeper on “the last good summer” topic. Over the last week, I’ve read a lot of The Line articles from the archives and your insights and predictions have held up over the last 2 years. I’m old enough to have lived through multiple economic shocks and downturns, and this feels familiar but different at the same time. I’m starting to really understand why my grandparents who were born in the 1910s had such a fear of debt and asset collapse that they rented their entire lives despite being able to afford a house. I guess there’s not much to be done other than to enjoy the present and think on a small scale for how we can make a positive contribution to the world.
Everything is going to get worse, until the so-called "expert" class has been completely repudiated and humbled. The crises and disasters you list have, one and all, been created by unfettered expert control. Covid should have shown us all that "experts" are, in fact, more prone to irrational group think than regular people. This is no surprise, since the requirement for being an "expert" is not so much knowledge and intelligence as rising hierarchically within a big institution, which requires BS and kissing up far more than it requires critical thinking. Notice that the word "expert" effectively has two meanings now: people who actually know things, and people who are anointed by hierarchical institutions as actually knowing things. These are not the same thing.
The ray of hope is the internet and crowdsourced intelligence. This excellent MIT paper explains why the heterodox thinkers on covid are more scientific than the official "experts": http://vis.csail.mit.edu/pubs/viral-visualizations/
We have already seen the complete destruction of the official narrative on Ukraine: far from failing, the Russians are actually having considerable success, and it is the West which is failing. Two months ago, the outsiders were predicting just this, and the "experts" were scoffing.
For every expert failure, there is an outsider, rational, data-driven riposte. The problem is that our belief in experts makes us think that more and more power in the hands of government is the answer. The real answer begins with repudiation of the "experts".
There's a ton of conjecture in this post. For example: "Notice that the word "expert" effectively has two meanings now: people who actually know things, and people who are anointed by hierarchical institutions as actually knowing things."
Nobody has changed what the work "expert" means. There have always been individual measures (what I know I know) and institutional accreditation for what one knows -- whether that's professional bodies, educational institutions, etc.
What I gather from reading your other posts is that you believe that those accreditation institutions do a poor job, but that mostly seems to be because you disagree with them in areas where the 'right' answer is open for debate, or where there is a need to choose trade-offs and you don't agree with the decisions made.
COVID-19 response is actually a good example of that. I'd agree with what I think you've stated before -- that public health agencies tended to communicate advice as if they had absolute certainty, where the nature of an evolving pandemic meant that -- in fact -- they were typically dealing with the best available information at the time. By mischaracterizing certainty (at least in tone if not in content), they created some confusion and mistrust as the situation evolved. For example, I stilll think that there is reasonable evidence that COVID is mostly spread through aerosols, meaning that ventilation and masking make a lot of sense, but worrying about surfaces doesn't. Places that have focused on rapid testing, ventilation, masking and vaccination have seemed to fare better with fewer disruptions.
In most areas of policy importance (responding to rapid economic change, climate change and pandemics among them) we'll always be dealing with some degree of uncertainty and debate. From a public policy perspective, we're not terribly good at that -- we either get mired in endless debates on what to do (and don't do much) or we assure ourselves we have certaintly when we don't and don't leave room to experiement with policy prescriptions, measure, learn and improve. COVID is a great example on that -- everytime I see hand sanitizer and people still worrying about surfaces, I feel like we are still stuck in the summer of 2020!
All of which to say, implying (as Polivere seems to) that the problem is simply "gatekeepers" strikes me as a gross oversimplification that doesn't really get to the root of the problem. You seem to just want to pick different "experts" -- ones you agree with. I don't think that's the solution.
That's a very nihilistic perspective. Experts make mistakes based on imperfect data and the fact that they're not actually omniscient. On the other hand, their expertise makes them better equipped to assess data and interpret it than non-experts. I'd recommend reading Jonathan Rauch's "Constitution of Knowledge."
Yes, why listen to experts? Why not have your neighbour perform your open-heart surgery because it's cheaper? Why have an anesthesiologist who knows what they're doing? Why have an engineer design bridges, when you can do it in a restaurant on a cocktail napkin? The suggestion that we shouldn't listen to people who know what they're talking about just because you find it inconvenient to you seems like the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. All while complaining that these people can't predict the future. You do your best with the information that you have, but things change. Every change is another domino falling which may completely change was is accepted. That's literally the definition of science. Sorry that it doesn't meet your standards....and that some YouTube video on the internet does.
Thanks for writing this. Your thoughts mirror mine. I’m glad to be a subscriber. And I also wobble between grief, terror, hopelessness, and gratitude. 😳
Lovely opening paragraph. It reminds me of a fav William Gibson quote describing what "good" science fiction was to him -- "Now, with the volume cranked up"
Recommend "The G Word" on Netflix that talked about (episode, "Money") how the government distributes largesse in proportion to how much you already have, not how badly you need it; a principle that goes down below big bankers, to well-lawyered mid-size corporations getting more COVID relief than tiny businesses with no lawyers.
As to future fears, get some perspective. The newspaper business looked like unmitigated disaster 5 years ago. Today, you can brag about starting your own, and it's growing. Human beings turn disaster into profit. My parent's generation turned the Great Depression into 50 years of financial stability from economic reforms and safety nets ("G Word" on FDIC is very good); turned WW2 and the prospect of nuclear holocaust into the UN, NATO, and 77 years of nuclear peace. Communism fell without a war, when EVERYBODY was sure a war would have to happen. Their century ended with far more human beings, better fed, twice as literate.
Your antidote to Michael Lewis is Stephen Pinker. Try "Enlightenment Now!" for summer, a quicker read than the better book "Better Angels of our Nature", with similar history at the start.
My sense of what is occurring is the realization that the standard of living we have been enjoying is no longer sustainable.
Society has been convinced by government that it can provide an ever higher standard but it is becoming apparent that there are not enough resources to maintain such a trajectory let alone the current level of social benefits.
The reason governments and the politicians who head them promise to make our lives continuously better is to maintain office and the power that goes with governance.
Political leaders use the public treasury to fund social measures that enhance our standard of living in exchange for support.
Given, however, the significant and ongoing cost of the social programs our country’s annual revenue has become insufficient to maintain current levels of spending let alone new initiatives.
The tax based has been largely tapped out and borrowing funds created out of thin air is necessary to underwrite promises of further social enhancement.
The creation of money by the BOC to finance government spending is now tapping out the value of our currency which is ,in turn, precipitating an inflationary spiral.
Interest rates are increasing to check this spiral but government remains fixated on adding to an already unsustainable standard of living through increased borrowing thus further fuelling significant increases to the cost of living.
The simple fact remains that Canada and other countries are hitting a fiscal wall due to the notion that the already unsustainable standard of living can be preserved and increased.
Politicians and governments keep encouraging this notion but fiscal reality has begun to dawn on evermore voters as the yellow warning indicators turn to red.
The battening of the fiscal hatches has started outside of government as the storm warnings are being forecast but our political leaders seem to think it is time to add sail rather than shorten it.
I remember the first time I saw you on the panel on P&P ...and thinking this woman is a freekin genius. You're why I bought the subscription, I've come to love Matt's work too. But this one is pure brilliance; especially the part of governments focussing on the nothing because they have no plan for the real issues. Shiny objects everywhere!!
I hope you both have a marvellous break fro the insanity....to the extent you can escape, a massive bumper crop on the Praires, and that someone, somewhere comes up with an idea for mass volume desalination of ocean water....pipelines people would love.
mmm...There is a big shiny new pipe, twined no less (that has to be good huh?) currently crossing BC to be dropped across the harbour from where I spent my formative years (Indian Arm). If they can pump dilutant up and over BC, thru the Rockies to Alberta, they could do desalinated water too. But Alberta doesn't want our water any more than we want their dilbit and triple the ships in the Straight.
I suspect Alberta and Saskatchewan will soon be craving such water on unimaginable levels, and the needs of the global food supply make that even more important. This would be a fabulous year for a bumper crop. Alas, being a trillion dollars in debt, Canada also needs revenue. My wish would be that the government would do some preplanning and have a massive oil spill readiness plan in place. I'm equally certain they won't in the same way wildfire-fighting resources seem to be diminishing as the number of fires goes up. Governments don't plan to fail; they fail to plan, and there are too many other shiny objects out there to throw money at. But having not thrown enough at any project, pretty much everything is now underserviced. At some point, we the voters, are going to have to decide what the priorities really are and figure out the things we can live without. We simply can't have it all and have the bank book that proves it.
That seems ridiculously short-sighted. One spring of green prairie grass does not mean everything is fine. It might mean this year could be fine.....or it could stop raining for 2 months and the crop collapses. Yes, thee are droughts. The US southwest has been in one for 25 years. That's not a drought...that's a change. The Colorado River is a shadow of its former self, and Lake Mead is at levels only seen when it was created.
Yes, you are a denier. There's no question about it. You think in small-batch timeframe instead of comparing the weather 30 years ago to what you have today. Calgary will always be a little different because of its geography. Climate change is higher highs, lower lows and bigger storms. Oddities like Sunshine will come from that.
No one anywhere is suggesting that oil and gas aren't going to be around for decades. It's a standard deflection talking point o people who would prefer not to deal with reality. Are electric cars the answer? Not for most of Canada. But in the cities, yes, they're a good solution; not perfect because the batteries create their own problems. Hydrogen may end up being the answer with electric as a stop-gap.
High gas prices are entirely because of economic conditions...including the choice of industry not to refine, or the inability to bring refining capacity back on line after the pandemic. They are literally rolling in profits...while still being subsidised. I don't believe you'll see another refinery built in Canada unless the government does it. Too small a market, and with the challenges of building a pipeline, I can only imagine the NIMBY challenges of a refinery.....not to mention a lack of space.
Except with the increased melting of freshwater ice in the Arctic, there may be something of a balance.....and the water taken from the ocean will all eventually end up back in the ocean. There is no magic bullet. Some may need to be dumped in the billions of old mine shafts around the world, but without water, places like Phoenix may be uninhabitable in as little as 30 years. I'll take the bandaid for now.
Stalled doesn't change the trillions of litres of water that have melted in the last 20 years. If the ice starts to regrow back to what it was, you'll have my attention.
I'm just going to ignore the last 3 paragraphs for reason I hope you find obvious. Global birth rates will solve that issue in due course...well, except in the US where they're mandated to go up....but that's just because they need targets.
I see a recession looming as the housing bubble deflates. We probably won't see a wave of defaults, but there's going to be greatly reduced capacity for any discretionary spending among a lot of homeowners. The other aspect is a lot of economic activity in big cities has been related to construction, and that could come to a screeching halt. Lots of blue collar workers are going to be out of work, and it'll have an impact like the oil price crash in Alberta. The bigger question is whether other sectors of the economy will offset the economic impact: energy and commodities are in demand, and that's good for Canada.
The other problem we have is an incompetent federal government. Trudeau's Liberals should've been turned out of government in the last election, if not the one before. If they're not grappling with the big problems, it's largely because they're desperately treading water with microtargeted policies to stay in power. The Conservatives are a mess right now, but the Liberals need a boot in the behind to shape up.
Maybe that's the bigger theme here: we've put off a number of reckonings for several years, and they're overdue. The amount of correction needed has gotten bigger because of the delay.
Good piece, Jen. Mirrors my half-dread of the future from south of the border as well. Just today I read that on top of everything else, Dr. Richardson (Heather) thinks that our Supreme Court has gone rogue. Maybe you folks in the north could start thinking about that refuge for the survivors from Gilead. Was the Earth ever this hopeless? Oh, yeah. I forgot about 1939 and Adolph H.
I'm kind of an optimistic skeptic, if there is such a thing. I agree that there are a lot of red lights blinking, but I tend to see them in the context that we're going through a bit of a revolution that has to quite sorted itself out yet.
Technology is putting powerful tools in the hands of more and more people. That's happened relatively quickly -- like within my lifetime. But as these tools become ubiquitous, we're seeing they are morally neutral. They can provide a world's worth of information AND provide cheap distribution for massive amounts of disinformation. They can revolutionize entire industries, making them more efficient AND they can displace people's careers and kill the economies of communities. They can help solve challenges like pollution AND they can enable exponential growth in consumption that is entirely not sustainable.
We're at the crossroads where both wonderful and horrible things are possible. What's left is to build the kind of institutions that encourage the former and discourage the latter. We are wayyy behind on that and -- as an example -- our federal government's attempts at internet legislation demonstrates our policy folks have a long way to go to even understanding the challenge.
The interesting thing about this tech revolution is it does make it easier for ideas to also flow up. People and small groups can have big impacts. So, maybe part of the solution is to not wait for big, traditional institutions to figure this out (they are too slow!) and start thinking about what we all can do to make things better. The Line delivers something better than, say the op-ed/analysis side of The National Post. Maybe that's a good harbinger of where we need to go: smaller, closer to the action agencies that can act more effectively and faster.
If we can't figure this out, China is proving these same tools are wonderful for surveillance and autocracy, and I don't want to live like that!
I too am an optimist. Perhaps much of the current disfunction will lessen when we stop asking governments to do so much for us and figure out how to do it for ourselves.
Well said Tony. One point is that "What's left is to build the kind of institutions that encourage the former and discourage the latter. " I'm afraid that we've dismantled the institutions that worked in the past -- Community, Family, Faith. I'm not a religious person nor much of a community worker but I think for all we think of these as archaic institutions, they seemed to provide a better functioning society. In no way do I want to give a pass to the harms that religion has wrought or say that all families were happy or that communities had no bias or exclusionary rules. Sometimes though, the baby does get thrown out with the bathwater.
I think we do need community-level, grassroots institutions that encourage social cohesion. But, I doubt that looks like it once did -- it needs to acknowledge the world we live in today.
That's always been the case, though. For a long time 'family' tended to mean an extended family, including multiple generations. Post WW2, the term took on more of a nuclear family meaning (Mom, Dad and the kids). It continues to evolve and may mean the unit of people you can always rely on -- whether you are related to them or not. I suspect an aging population may find that co-habiting with close peers and taking care of each other may prove preferable for some than seniors institutions, at least for those who can manage it.
Same with community. It used to mean your (likely small, rural) town. Then, it might have meant your big-city neighbourhood, or suburbian communities built around activities (the curling league). Now, we find people both in real life and digitally, so communities might be geographical, interest-based, or both. Even The Line comment section is a community of sorts!
The fringe groups seem to have a lot of time on their hands and have found each other. Now, it's time for the rest of us to do likewise so we can find an appropriate civic balance!
I also note that the dysfunction tends to lie in government and politics, and not all governments at that. The private sector reacted fairly well throughout the pandemic: they figured out what they needed to do to continue operating and protect their workers, and they did it. There were hiccups and snarls, but we certainly didn't see widespread paralysis or dysfunction. It was much the same during the BC floods - 3 major highways cut off, but the logistics sector re-routed quickly. The provincial government response was also pretty good, although they engaged in some fairly gimmicky schemes regarding gas rationing.
Excellent take. I think we're in a storm right now that could get better or could get much much worse, and it's tough to know how long it will last, but I'm confident that the storm will eventually pass. And I think technology will be what makes it pass, as has been the case in previous historical stormy periods.
Jesus Jen. But I don’t disagree. We don’t seem to have leadership or feedback loops any more. The gain of function research that caused Covid is still taking place all over the world. I haven’t seen any attempt to address lack of resiliency in our supply chains that Covid highlighted. Most Canadians supported Trudeau’s appalling authoritarian actions against the convoy - as well as the wholesale gutting of Charter rights during Covid by all governments. We worry about global warming when we should be worried about this fall. We are the authors of our own misfortune and we going to get what we get and we should not be upset.
Not that it particularly matters, but your position appears to be inconsistent. On the one hand, you say that the government should curtail freedom in order to keep people safer (gain of function research) but when the government actually did curtail freedom in order to keep people safer (vaccine mandates and restrictions) it didn’t have the right to do so. The majority of Canadians supported government restrictions for the same reason you are opposed to gain of function research – they determined that they and their fellow citizens would be safer.
Canadians have no inviolable rights – so curtailing freedom in either case is within the purview of the government. This is because, as much as the Charter is about freedom, the key word is reasonable. Those of us supporting restrictions looked at comparative death rates and who (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) was going into ICU's and reasonably concluded that restrictions were in order.
For what it's worth -- the notion that gain of function research caused COVID-19 is -- at best -- an unproven theory. And, before panicking about gain of function research in general, in which scientists bestow new abilities on pathogens in order to study them (and, ideally, get ahead of what may happen in the wild), I'd like to have a better sense of both the benefits and risks. I did find this Nature article to be a useful overview on the debate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x.
Tony - I'm pretty confident that a bat virus that started in a city that has a lab that studies bat viruses - including using money from the US to do gain of function research on bat viruses (because it is illegal in the US) is the most plausible explanation for Covid. But even if it isn't - gain of function research is incredibly dangerous. If Covid even had a 5% death rate we'd all probably be dead now because the entire supply chain we rely on would break down. Truckers wouldn't drive to the city - physicians wouldn't show up for work. We would be dead from starvation and violence over resources. The world is going to end in a petri dish, from a rock from outer space, or from a giant volcanoe. We can't do much (yet at least) about the last two - but we can easily control the first. So what did we get from the scientific community? A wall of denial, misdirection and silencing. What about politicians? Health Authorities? Nothing.
So how do you explain 1919? We can speculate all we want about where it came from but there is lots of historical evidence of something like this being created naturally. Sure, someone in the lab could have had a brain fart and infected the world, but at this point, does it even matter? I say that because I refuse to believe, without hard evidence, that it was released on purpose...a true act of war.
I don't think it was released on purpose at all. I think it was just a lab accident. Frankly there is a lot more evidence here than mere speculation. The 1918 flu was a mutated version of a disease people already get. Gain of function takes diseases in other species that we don't get - or don't easily get - and then literally runs them through samples of human respiratory tissue over and over in a lab until a mutation is found that easily infects humans. The explanation that they create them so they can study them is very weak - because these were extremely unlikely to ever occur naturally in the first place. That is why it isn't permitted in the US - but obviously it shouldn't be permitted - or should be better regulated - everywhere. The reality is that millions of people died because of this type of research - but no one seems to be showing the slightest interest in learning anything from the incident.
That is definitely possible. I understand the concept of gain of function as well. It's possible. The cat is already out of the bag....there's no going back on the research. But until someone provides proof that it came from a lab....and I suspect I'll be long dead before it does.....it's just speculation.
I'm a little older than you, Jen. As a father of four (three adults and one teenager) I too am struggling with the pending sense of doom you describe, and have to fight to not dwell too much on it during conversations with my kids. My farm/ranch childhood and adult self-employment in land & water protection (24 years in municipal government and 12 years as a private consultant) has left me with the sense that the 'real world' always triumphs over what we would like it to be / wish it was. In short, the facts of life don't give a s**t about anyone's feelings or opinions.
My philosophy differs from many (perhaps most) these days in that I fully expect the majority of people (including myself, alas) to act in selfish self-interest, most (not all) of the time. I think everyone has the capacity to be good - to act in an unselfish manner - i just believe that a majority of time, they don't. In my view, altruism is the exception to the rule of unconscious (or even conscious) selfishness. So many people I encounter seem to believe just the opposite - that most people are inherently good, kind, unselfish, altruistic humans most of the time, and just occasionally succumb to selfish lapses.
What I've noticed through my 50-odd years, however, is that when things get bad (really bad) it tends to bring out the best in a surprising number (though not all) people. Fires, floods, and other natural disasters come to mind. Even the pandemic showed this tendency, during the first few months. For a short time in early 2020, most of us really did feel like (in the now toxic line from Dr. Deena Hinshaw and other CMOH's) we were 'all in this together'.
However, the longer the pandemic (and government / health care system attempts to 'manage' it) went on, the more patience and tolerance for the situation (and each other) evaporated, bringing out the inherent selfishness I describe above, but in spades. It became clear that we were certainly NOT all in it together. Many public sector staff and large private businesses and their workers certainly fared better than private sector small businesses or self-employed individuals did.
On all sides of any debate you can think of, pandemic-related or otherwise, the selfishness lingers as we wade through the post-pandemic wreckage. Trust and patience are nearly gone, replaced by deep suspicion and fatalistic despair. Tribalism on any topic you could name is at an all time high in my life experience on a micro and macro level, spurred on by the countless tendrils of the internet like gasoline vapour interacting with open flames.
I think you're correct that we need to get outside and enjoy ourselves to the best of our ability (except the part where you advocate running up the credit card - don't do that, ever). I think you're also correct that we are entering the literal 'winter of our discontent' - it's going to get ugly. Debt will have to be repaid. Shortages will lead to much hardship. The facts of life will assert themselves, as they always do. It won't be pretty.
And yet......and yet.....humanity is also incredibly, amazingly resilient, as we've proven over and over again. Perhaps even some of that resliience can be tied to the inherent selfishness of individuals, which can lead to bursts of self-serving short-term inspiration that (often inadvertently) ends up to benefit us all in the medium to long term. Bad leadership will always ultimately fail (as it always has), and new leadership will emerge from the wreckage (as it always does) to lead us back out of the gloom towards a new hope for better times.
It has ever been thus. Our ancestors overcame challenges we can only dimly imagine in our current world. Our comforts have gradually made us forget the unforgiving facts of life. We will relearn the lessons - at considerable cost in the process - but we will again come to understand the facts of life.
So, I agree, enjoy your summer, and lets all try to stifle that innate selfishness, and be kind to each other, seeking to help others enjoy their summer as well.
Good piece Jen. I think your mood and thoughts mirror those of many of us ... along with your prescription of enjoying this summer any whichway you can.
If we're lucky, we'll ( the world) muddle through. If not, we're in for a long, painful slog through an unknowable, unrecognizable future.
So, 🍹Cheers to a great summer Jen and Everyone 🍹
I also share similar worries. It's a small comfort to know I'm not alone in that. It's also a comfort to take a vacation, seek out some nature, and enjoy our two-year-old's twoness. And re-read Cloud Atlas.
Nice piece. Still happy to be a paid subscriber.
Jen, thank you for going deeper on “the last good summer” topic. Over the last week, I’ve read a lot of The Line articles from the archives and your insights and predictions have held up over the last 2 years. I’m old enough to have lived through multiple economic shocks and downturns, and this feels familiar but different at the same time. I’m starting to really understand why my grandparents who were born in the 1910s had such a fear of debt and asset collapse that they rented their entire lives despite being able to afford a house. I guess there’s not much to be done other than to enjoy the present and think on a small scale for how we can make a positive contribution to the world.
A bit like the summer of 42.
Everything is going to get worse, until the so-called "expert" class has been completely repudiated and humbled. The crises and disasters you list have, one and all, been created by unfettered expert control. Covid should have shown us all that "experts" are, in fact, more prone to irrational group think than regular people. This is no surprise, since the requirement for being an "expert" is not so much knowledge and intelligence as rising hierarchically within a big institution, which requires BS and kissing up far more than it requires critical thinking. Notice that the word "expert" effectively has two meanings now: people who actually know things, and people who are anointed by hierarchical institutions as actually knowing things. These are not the same thing.
The ray of hope is the internet and crowdsourced intelligence. This excellent MIT paper explains why the heterodox thinkers on covid are more scientific than the official "experts": http://vis.csail.mit.edu/pubs/viral-visualizations/
We have already seen the complete destruction of the official narrative on Ukraine: far from failing, the Russians are actually having considerable success, and it is the West which is failing. Two months ago, the outsiders were predicting just this, and the "experts" were scoffing.
For every expert failure, there is an outsider, rational, data-driven riposte. The problem is that our belief in experts makes us think that more and more power in the hands of government is the answer. The real answer begins with repudiation of the "experts".
There's a ton of conjecture in this post. For example: "Notice that the word "expert" effectively has two meanings now: people who actually know things, and people who are anointed by hierarchical institutions as actually knowing things."
Nobody has changed what the work "expert" means. There have always been individual measures (what I know I know) and institutional accreditation for what one knows -- whether that's professional bodies, educational institutions, etc.
What I gather from reading your other posts is that you believe that those accreditation institutions do a poor job, but that mostly seems to be because you disagree with them in areas where the 'right' answer is open for debate, or where there is a need to choose trade-offs and you don't agree with the decisions made.
COVID-19 response is actually a good example of that. I'd agree with what I think you've stated before -- that public health agencies tended to communicate advice as if they had absolute certainty, where the nature of an evolving pandemic meant that -- in fact -- they were typically dealing with the best available information at the time. By mischaracterizing certainty (at least in tone if not in content), they created some confusion and mistrust as the situation evolved. For example, I stilll think that there is reasonable evidence that COVID is mostly spread through aerosols, meaning that ventilation and masking make a lot of sense, but worrying about surfaces doesn't. Places that have focused on rapid testing, ventilation, masking and vaccination have seemed to fare better with fewer disruptions.
In most areas of policy importance (responding to rapid economic change, climate change and pandemics among them) we'll always be dealing with some degree of uncertainty and debate. From a public policy perspective, we're not terribly good at that -- we either get mired in endless debates on what to do (and don't do much) or we assure ourselves we have certaintly when we don't and don't leave room to experiement with policy prescriptions, measure, learn and improve. COVID is a great example on that -- everytime I see hand sanitizer and people still worrying about surfaces, I feel like we are still stuck in the summer of 2020!
All of which to say, implying (as Polivere seems to) that the problem is simply "gatekeepers" strikes me as a gross oversimplification that doesn't really get to the root of the problem. You seem to just want to pick different "experts" -- ones you agree with. I don't think that's the solution.
That's a very nihilistic perspective. Experts make mistakes based on imperfect data and the fact that they're not actually omniscient. On the other hand, their expertise makes them better equipped to assess data and interpret it than non-experts. I'd recommend reading Jonathan Rauch's "Constitution of Knowledge."
Yes, why listen to experts? Why not have your neighbour perform your open-heart surgery because it's cheaper? Why have an anesthesiologist who knows what they're doing? Why have an engineer design bridges, when you can do it in a restaurant on a cocktail napkin? The suggestion that we shouldn't listen to people who know what they're talking about just because you find it inconvenient to you seems like the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. All while complaining that these people can't predict the future. You do your best with the information that you have, but things change. Every change is another domino falling which may completely change was is accepted. That's literally the definition of science. Sorry that it doesn't meet your standards....and that some YouTube video on the internet does.
Thanks for writing this. Your thoughts mirror mine. I’m glad to be a subscriber. And I also wobble between grief, terror, hopelessness, and gratitude. 😳
Lovely opening paragraph. It reminds me of a fav William Gibson quote describing what "good" science fiction was to him -- "Now, with the volume cranked up"
Thank you for writing my diary for me.
Recommend "The G Word" on Netflix that talked about (episode, "Money") how the government distributes largesse in proportion to how much you already have, not how badly you need it; a principle that goes down below big bankers, to well-lawyered mid-size corporations getting more COVID relief than tiny businesses with no lawyers.
As to future fears, get some perspective. The newspaper business looked like unmitigated disaster 5 years ago. Today, you can brag about starting your own, and it's growing. Human beings turn disaster into profit. My parent's generation turned the Great Depression into 50 years of financial stability from economic reforms and safety nets ("G Word" on FDIC is very good); turned WW2 and the prospect of nuclear holocaust into the UN, NATO, and 77 years of nuclear peace. Communism fell without a war, when EVERYBODY was sure a war would have to happen. Their century ended with far more human beings, better fed, twice as literate.
Your antidote to Michael Lewis is Stephen Pinker. Try "Enlightenment Now!" for summer, a quicker read than the better book "Better Angels of our Nature", with similar history at the start.
My sense of what is occurring is the realization that the standard of living we have been enjoying is no longer sustainable.
Society has been convinced by government that it can provide an ever higher standard but it is becoming apparent that there are not enough resources to maintain such a trajectory let alone the current level of social benefits.
The reason governments and the politicians who head them promise to make our lives continuously better is to maintain office and the power that goes with governance.
Political leaders use the public treasury to fund social measures that enhance our standard of living in exchange for support.
Given, however, the significant and ongoing cost of the social programs our country’s annual revenue has become insufficient to maintain current levels of spending let alone new initiatives.
The tax based has been largely tapped out and borrowing funds created out of thin air is necessary to underwrite promises of further social enhancement.
The creation of money by the BOC to finance government spending is now tapping out the value of our currency which is ,in turn, precipitating an inflationary spiral.
Interest rates are increasing to check this spiral but government remains fixated on adding to an already unsustainable standard of living through increased borrowing thus further fuelling significant increases to the cost of living.
The simple fact remains that Canada and other countries are hitting a fiscal wall due to the notion that the already unsustainable standard of living can be preserved and increased.
Politicians and governments keep encouraging this notion but fiscal reality has begun to dawn on evermore voters as the yellow warning indicators turn to red.
The battening of the fiscal hatches has started outside of government as the storm warnings are being forecast but our political leaders seem to think it is time to add sail rather than shorten it.
I remember the first time I saw you on the panel on P&P ...and thinking this woman is a freekin genius. You're why I bought the subscription, I've come to love Matt's work too. But this one is pure brilliance; especially the part of governments focussing on the nothing because they have no plan for the real issues. Shiny objects everywhere!!
I hope you both have a marvellous break fro the insanity....to the extent you can escape, a massive bumper crop on the Praires, and that someone, somewhere comes up with an idea for mass volume desalination of ocean water....pipelines people would love.
Cheers
OK, not mass volume but still pretty great.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/a-glass-of-ocean-water-quebec-company-wins-award-for-desalination-technology
Very very cool, and a step in the right direction. If ever there was something that could change the world...and provide pipelines people want.
mmm...There is a big shiny new pipe, twined no less (that has to be good huh?) currently crossing BC to be dropped across the harbour from where I spent my formative years (Indian Arm). If they can pump dilutant up and over BC, thru the Rockies to Alberta, they could do desalinated water too. But Alberta doesn't want our water any more than we want their dilbit and triple the ships in the Straight.
I suspect Alberta and Saskatchewan will soon be craving such water on unimaginable levels, and the needs of the global food supply make that even more important. This would be a fabulous year for a bumper crop. Alas, being a trillion dollars in debt, Canada also needs revenue. My wish would be that the government would do some preplanning and have a massive oil spill readiness plan in place. I'm equally certain they won't in the same way wildfire-fighting resources seem to be diminishing as the number of fires goes up. Governments don't plan to fail; they fail to plan, and there are too many other shiny objects out there to throw money at. But having not thrown enough at any project, pretty much everything is now underserviced. At some point, we the voters, are going to have to decide what the priorities really are and figure out the things we can live without. We simply can't have it all and have the bank book that proves it.
That seems ridiculously short-sighted. One spring of green prairie grass does not mean everything is fine. It might mean this year could be fine.....or it could stop raining for 2 months and the crop collapses. Yes, thee are droughts. The US southwest has been in one for 25 years. That's not a drought...that's a change. The Colorado River is a shadow of its former self, and Lake Mead is at levels only seen when it was created.
Yes, you are a denier. There's no question about it. You think in small-batch timeframe instead of comparing the weather 30 years ago to what you have today. Calgary will always be a little different because of its geography. Climate change is higher highs, lower lows and bigger storms. Oddities like Sunshine will come from that.
No one anywhere is suggesting that oil and gas aren't going to be around for decades. It's a standard deflection talking point o people who would prefer not to deal with reality. Are electric cars the answer? Not for most of Canada. But in the cities, yes, they're a good solution; not perfect because the batteries create their own problems. Hydrogen may end up being the answer with electric as a stop-gap.
High gas prices are entirely because of economic conditions...including the choice of industry not to refine, or the inability to bring refining capacity back on line after the pandemic. They are literally rolling in profits...while still being subsidised. I don't believe you'll see another refinery built in Canada unless the government does it. Too small a market, and with the challenges of building a pipeline, I can only imagine the NIMBY challenges of a refinery.....not to mention a lack of space.
Except with the increased melting of freshwater ice in the Arctic, there may be something of a balance.....and the water taken from the ocean will all eventually end up back in the ocean. There is no magic bullet. Some may need to be dumped in the billions of old mine shafts around the world, but without water, places like Phoenix may be uninhabitable in as little as 30 years. I'll take the bandaid for now.
Stalled doesn't change the trillions of litres of water that have melted in the last 20 years. If the ice starts to regrow back to what it was, you'll have my attention.
I'm just going to ignore the last 3 paragraphs for reason I hope you find obvious. Global birth rates will solve that issue in due course...well, except in the US where they're mandated to go up....but that's just because they need targets.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/?sh=776aa81ef4a9
I see a recession looming as the housing bubble deflates. We probably won't see a wave of defaults, but there's going to be greatly reduced capacity for any discretionary spending among a lot of homeowners. The other aspect is a lot of economic activity in big cities has been related to construction, and that could come to a screeching halt. Lots of blue collar workers are going to be out of work, and it'll have an impact like the oil price crash in Alberta. The bigger question is whether other sectors of the economy will offset the economic impact: energy and commodities are in demand, and that's good for Canada.
The other problem we have is an incompetent federal government. Trudeau's Liberals should've been turned out of government in the last election, if not the one before. If they're not grappling with the big problems, it's largely because they're desperately treading water with microtargeted policies to stay in power. The Conservatives are a mess right now, but the Liberals need a boot in the behind to shape up.
Maybe that's the bigger theme here: we've put off a number of reckonings for several years, and they're overdue. The amount of correction needed has gotten bigger because of the delay.
Good piece, Jen. Mirrors my half-dread of the future from south of the border as well. Just today I read that on top of everything else, Dr. Richardson (Heather) thinks that our Supreme Court has gone rogue. Maybe you folks in the north could start thinking about that refuge for the survivors from Gilead. Was the Earth ever this hopeless? Oh, yeah. I forgot about 1939 and Adolph H.