The Future is Upon Us

I've recently been in conversations where people have suggested the next wars will be about water and food. Think about how much of your food is imported from different countries. What would you do if imported food was no longer available? Especially consider the winter.

In Canada we kind of take the water part for granted. Yes we should all work towards conserving water. It is not an infinite resource, but for the most part, Canadians are not dying from lack of clean water. This does not mean we don't have to worry about water wars, it just puts us on the defensive. And it starts now (from Alison at Creekside):

"It's no secret that the U.S. is going to need water. ...

It's no secret that Canada is going to have an overabundance of water.
At the end of the day, there may have to be arrangements."

So says Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, director of the North American Future 2025 Project, which is wrapping up its closed-door two-day conference in Calgary today.

NAF2025 Project is the trilateral spawn of the US thinktank Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Conference Board of Canada, and CIDE, a Mexican policy institute.

Its mandate is implementing the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the deep integration deal signed by Bush, Fox, and Martin in 2005 and further expanded by Bush, Fox, and Harper in 2006.

From an outline of the conference :

"the overriding future goal of North America is to achieve joint optimum utilization of the available water."

Not bad.

'All your water are belong to us' would have been catchier.

Still, the message is unmistakable, isn't it?

Hmm, I'm all for sharing, but the US doesn't have a good track record for sharing nicely. Remember the softwood lumber dispute anyone?

CC from Canadian Cynic weighs in:

Got that? An "overabundance" of water. The implication is clear: somehow, it's just not right. It's just not fair. We have so much while others have so little, so we should work to somehow balance this out because, well, it's the right thing to do.

And if any of my American readers want to take that position, let me give them something to think about:

* Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)

* In 1997, U.S. residents consumed an average of 12,133 kilowatt-hours of electricity each, almost nine times greater than the average for the rest of the world. (Grist Magazine)

Sure, let's talk about fair and balanced, shall we? Tell you what -- we can discuss sharing all that water equally when you folks start consuming energy equally.

Whaddya think? Is that fair? Does that work for you?

But my absolute favourite quote on the issue if from commenter North of 49 at Creekside:

I think it stems from the same mindset that demands to know what all that American oil is doing under the sands of Iraq and Iran.

Phone Company Deregulation

Hmm, I can't wait to see how this turns out:

Phone companies flood CRTC with deregulation filings

....

Aliant filed for deregulation of markets in the Halifax area.

The flood of applications followed the announcement April 4 by Industry Minister Maxime Bernier that he would open competition in local phone markets where there are at least three different carriers in operation, including cellphone providers.

That overruled a CRTC policy that said the existing phone companies would continue to face restrictions in the local phone market unless their competitors had a 25 per cent share of the market.

Bernier said the new policy, which takes effect April 18, would lead to more choice for consumers and lower prices.

That's certainly what the incumbent phone companies were saying Thursday.

"Local service deregulation in Vancouver and Edmonton will bring the full benefits of competition to these cities," said Telus executive vice-president Janet Yale in a statement.

Aliant said its customers "will experience the full benefits of competition, with greater value through increased choice and flexible offers that can be delivered in a more timely manner."

No really, I can't wait to experience greater value and flexible offers from Aliant. Of course, I don't live in Halifax so I guess this doesn't really apply to me. I just want to reiterate how much I think we are getting shafted by the phone companies.

Seal Hunt Rant

I want to respond to a comment I received on my Newfoundland post. Here's the entire comment:

Anonymous said...

It's too bad that Canada still allows the annual clubbing of baby seals for their fur. The Humane Society of the U.S. and Humane Society International is currently in Newfoundland to report on this cruel hunt.

www.protectseals.org

~Tyler

April 2, 2007 11:33 AM

The seal hunt is highly regulated and monitored by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. It does not allow clubbing of baby seals. It allows killing seals that have lost their 'whitecoat" (baby fur), which happens at about 14 days. Most seals are killed when they are 25 days to 3 months old.

And I have to disagree with the words "cruel hunt". What makes this hunt cruel, as opposed to other (deer, moose, duck, pheasant) hunting? Beef and chicken slaughterhouses? Fishing and allowing the fish to suffocate to death? Humans hunt and kill all kinds of animals for food and for the fur. I just love it when people call hunting cruel and then go to the grocery store to buy meat that is all sanitarily wrapped in white and clear plastic with a pad absorbing all the blood, so it doesn't look too gory. Where do they think that meat is coming from? I hope they never end up in a situation where they need to obtain their own food. Even the idiots on Survivor can kill rats and fish. I guess hunger is a good teacher.

The animal rights groups use pictures that are inflammatory, even if they know those pictures are misleading. For instance you will often see pictures of whitecoat seals being killed. This has been illegal since 1987. The International Fund for Animal Welfare released a video that shows extreme cruelty during the 1996 sealing season. The methods on the video are illegal and charges were laid in that case. Here's a link to a pdf the International Fund for Animal Welfare has produced, if you'd like to see the opposing view. Be warned, it contains cute white baby seals, and carcasses of seals that have been skinned. http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/2_Publications/Seals/sealsandsealing2005.pdf

The Fisheries and Oceans Canada website has some good info. The following is an excerpt:

Myth #1: The Canadian government allows sealers to kill whitecoat seals.

Reality: The image of the whitecoat harp seal is used prominently by seal hunt opponents. This image gives the false impression that vulnerable seal pups are targeted by sealers during the commercial hunt.

The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks) is illegal – and has been since 1987. Marine Mammal Regulations prohibit the trade, sale or barter of the fur of these pups. The seals that are hunted are self-reliant, independent animals.

---

Myth #2: Seals are being skinned alive.

Reality: A 2002 independent veterinarians’ report published in the Canadian Veterinary Journal and numerous reports mentioned by the Malouf Commission (1987) indicate that this is not true.

Sometimes a seal may appear to be moving after it has been killed; however seals have a swimming reflex that is active – even after death. This reflex gives the false impression that the animal is still alive when it is clearly dead – similar to the reflex in chickens.

---

Myth #3: The club – or hakapik – is a barbaric and inhumane tool that has no place in today’s world.

Reality: Hunting methods were studied by the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada and it found that the clubbing of seals, when properly performed, is at least as humane as, and often more humane than, the killing methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, which are accepted by the majority of the public.

A 2002 report published in the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely.

Sealers in the Magdalen Islands (Gulf of St. Lawrence) and on Quebec's Lower North Shore, where about 25% of the hunt occurs, use both rifles and hakapiks while sealers on the ice floes on the Front (in the waters east of Newfoundland), where 75% of the hunt occurs, primarily use rifles.

---

Myth #4: The Canadian government is allowing sealers to kill thousands of seals to help with the recovery of cod stocks.

Reality: Several factors have contributed to the lack of recovery of Atlantic cod stocks, such as fishing effort, poor growth and physical condition of the fish, and environmental changes.

In addition, there are many uncertainties in the estimates of the amount of fish consumed by seals. The commercial quota is established on sound conservation principles, not an attempt to assist in the recovery of groundfish stocks.

---

Myth #5: The hunt is unsustainable and is endangering the harp seal population.

Reality: Since the 1960s, environmental groups have been saying the seal hunt is unsustainable. In fact, the harp seal population is healthy and abundant. A 2004 survey estimated the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population at approximately 5.8 million animals, nearly triple what it was in the 1970s.

DFO sets quotas at levels that ensure the health and abundance of seal herds. In no way are seals - and harp seals in particular – an “endangered species”.

The High Cost of Laziness

Here's a post from Echidne that really makes me mad:

Do you remember the big fuss the media made over the 1999 study by Kawachi and others which found that greater gender equality appeared to be correlated with better health for both sexes in the United States? How about the even bigger media fuss caused by the 2005 study by Chen and others which found that gender equality appeared to be correlated with better mental health for women? And surely you remember the excitement in the media last year when we all learned about the Swedish study which showed that both men and women have better health when roles are shared more equally at home?

You don't recall? Neither do I, because there was no such fuss at all. Studies with those findings are not mentioned in the popular media at all or only fleetingly. But when a Swedish study in 2007 suggests that greater gender equality leads to less health for both sexes, what happens? You guessed it. The media is on the study right away:

Warning: feminism is bad for your health

By Roger Dobson Published: 25 March 2007

I am, in fact, quite lazy. I want my information spoon fed to me. Nice succinct headlines are nice. The problem is that when I rely on headlines and news media I am not getting all the information. I am getting whatever they feel like spoon feeding me that day. I am willingly letting them have a major say in any of my decisions and thoughts, because I base my decisions and thoughts on the info available to me.

If we are interested in knowledge and truthiness, we must make an effort to dig for all the relevant information. I know this sounds like hard work. Perhaps, when we make the effort to feed ourselves, we can choose to eat something other than baby-food.

Global Warming - do you believe?

A headline from CBC states "Almost 4 out of 5 Canadians believe in global warming: poll".

...
In Alberta, 69 per cent of respondents said they believed in global warming, while in Quebec, the number soared to 83 per cent.
...
The online survey of about 3,600 people found many Canadians — 30 per cent — believed global warming was the top issue for politicians to address, almost as many as the 31 per cent of Canadians who put health care as the top priority.
...
Only 12 per cent of those surveyed viewed global warming as "junk science" and only two per cent believed global warming isn't happening at all.

This headline caught my eye because it makes global warming sound like a religion, 4 out 5 believe in global warming. I don't think global warming is a matter of faith. Either the ozone layer has a hole in it, or it doesn't. Either the ice caps are melting faster, or they're not.

Fortunately, we can measure these things. We don't have to just pick a random opinion to believe in.

Update:
Also found this at the CBC [bolds mine]:

While former U.S. vice-president Al Gore was in Washington on Wednesday, speaking about the need for action on world climate change, one of his disciples was in Saint John spreading the same message to high school students.

Peter Corbyn, a Fredericton-based professional engineer who was the only Atlantic Canadian out of 500 people trained by Gore as a "Global Warming Messenger," told students at St. Malachy's High School "we dump about 25 million tonnes a day of carbon dioxide into the oceans."

Disciples!?!

Congrats to Peter Corbyn for "spreading the word" in our corner of the world.

What do fashion ads tell us?

Some designer has chosen 12 year old Dakota Fanning to model his latest women's line. A few people have blogged about it, some here, here and here. They have done a god job of covering the whole 'sexualization of a child thing' so I'll just excerpt Reverse Paranoia:

...while society doesn’t condone pedophilia in practice, media mavens the world around would nevertheless like the idea of fucking a child to get the Masturbation Pedestal Treatment. Specifically, a girl child, since I haven’t seen anyone try to sell women on the idea of rubbing one out to the vapid image of a pre-pubescent boy in tailor-made Versace pants.
...
But conflating the womanly ideal of beauty with actual childhood is something else. Ads are meant to evoke desire: desire to be, or to be with, depending on the viewer. The object of desire, in this case, is a little girl.
...
Thumbsucking, after all, is only 4,764 steps removed from cocksucking. Which is what us women girls do best.

Strong words. I wanted to see the pic's for myself before forming an opinion, and found them here. Yeah, they're bit weird. What I can't figure out is why I would want to buy some clothes that I see on a 12-year-old.

In the bigger picture, what is the purpose of models? Cat Lady from Reverse Paranoia says "to evoke the desire to be". I agree, but in my mind I phrase it as "I will look like and be like that person if I buy this product." So models should be people we want to look like or be like. I like Dakota. I think she's a good actress. But I do not want to look like a 12-year-old, or be like a 12-year-old. I am a bit upset about being 31, but I would settle for 27 :)

When I look in fashion magazines lately (it doesn't happen too often), I see creepy starving girls, with sunken eyes. What the hell is with heroin chic? I understand goth, but I don't want to be starving, or drug addicted. I'm not sure how these ads are supposed to inspire me to buy the clothes they are selling.

Maybe if I'm skinny with a drug addiction I won't need to worry about paying the bills, or going to work, or what to feed the kids for supper, or how to lose 30 pounds. I guess that sounds attractive. If I'm hopeless and helpless and skinny, I can find some man to take care of me (and own me and use me up and throw me out.)

No, I'm pretty sure I want to buy clothes that will look good on my 31-year-old body.

More Cellphone Service Rant

Looks like when the CBC says "most Canadians", they really mean people who live in the big provinces with money (from the CRTC, bolds mine ):

By March 14, 2007 Bell Mobility, Rogers Wireless and the mobility division of TELUS Communications Inc. will be required to provide WNP to their customers in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Québec. This means that customers in any of these provinces will be able to switch to any service provider in that province (wireline or wireless) and keep their phone number.

Throughout Canada, all wireless carriers will, by the same date, be required to release a phone number to another carrier (port-out customers) and by no later than September 12, 2007, to accept a phone number from another carrier (port-in customers).

Looks like us poor folk in Atlantic Canada are just chopped liver.

Cellphone Service Providers

Over at CBC we learn that we can now keep our cell phone number when switching carriers.

When most Canadians wake up on March 14, they'll be able to do something that at least some of them have been longing for: give their cellphone service provider the boot — without changing their phone numbers.

On that day, major wireless telecommunications carriers across the country will flip the switch on wireless number portability (WNP), which will allow cellphone users to do something that has been possible with traditional land lines for years.

What's more, number portability will extend across the wired-wireless divide. It will be possible to move a cellphone number to a fixed-line phone, or vice versa.

Wow. This actually is something I've been longing for. But I think there is also another problem and it's something that makes me really angry. In order to get a new cellphone for free (or discounted), you have to be a new customer. This means that the company you have been paying for 3 years (because of your contract) does not really value your business anymore. They had you hooked because most people don't want to change their phone number. New customers get a free phone, but loyal customers do not. Oh, Aliant (Bell) will let you have an "upgrade" credit, but it does not cover the price of a phone.

For the last 10 years, I have been switching service providers whenever my contract is up, meaning that my number changed every 2-3 years. This is a real pain in the ass. I wonder what the phone companies will be doing now to screw us over... Oh the article also mentions this:

"That's why you're starting to see Bell-to-Bell and Rogers-to-Rogers calling packages," Wong said.

There ya go.