HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2011-06-02, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011. PAGE 5.
It’s tough to make predictions – especially
about the future.
– Yogi Berra
According to Michael Garcia, you’re
not reading these words. According to
Michael Garcia, nobody is engaged in
anything as prosaic as turning the pages of a
newspaper today, because newspapers – and
you – no longer exist. They/we all went kaput
on Saturday May 21, 2011 – the day the world
came to an end.
Michael Garcia is a spokesman for a
wingnut evangelical cult called, illogically
enough, Family Radio. For the past several
months Family Radio True Believers have
been shelling out hundreds of thousands of
dollars to rent billboard space around the
world (including in 17 cities in Canada) to
warn everyone that Judgement Day was upon
us.
The True Believers will be okay. The rest of
us are in for at least five months of
earthquakes, floods, fire, pestilence, plague,
itchy, burning piles and, well... Hell on Earth.
I don’t know what Michael Garcia is up to
today, but I’m at my keyboard and you’re
reading this, so I’m guessing Mister Garcia is
busy trying to come up with an explanation for
“What Went Right”.
He’ll hear no snickering from this corner.
It’s a tough gig, the predictions biz, and
Mister G. isn’t the first soothsayer to trip
over his beard while making pronounce-
ments. A couple of centuries back, the Duke
of Wellington snorted that he “could see
no reason to suppose that these machines
will ever force themselves into general
use”.
He was talking about steam locomotives.
About six decades back, Albert Einstein
confidently declared that “there is not the
slightest indication that nuclear energy will
ever be obtainable.”
And in 1957, a British astronomer named Sir
Harold Spencer-Thomas said flatly into a BBC
microphone: “Space travel is bunk”.
Two weeks later the Russians launched
Sputnik I.
Oracles who base their prophesies on the
Bible have an equally dismal record. William
Millar, a Baptist preacher who founded what
eventually became the Seventh Day
Adventists, predicted the Second Coming
would occur between 1843 and 1844. Charles
Russell, progenitor of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, assured his flock that Christ would
return invisibly (?) in 1874 and then in the
flesh in 1914.
And of course we have the latest crop of
Apocalypsers confidently preparing for the
end of the world on December 21, 2012
because the ancient Mayan calendar tells them
so.
It doesn’t really, but that’s another story.
Len Fisher is the author of a new book called
Crashes, Crises and Calamities which
explores the emerging science of disaster
prediction. In it, he points out that looking
for Biblical escape hatches from major
modern catastrophes can be particularly
unhelpful.
“The whole point of critical transitions and
sudden change is that the future is totally
different from the past” he says. “Basically,
any attempt to predict critical transitions is
nonsense, and I include people attempting to
use Biblical prophesies.”
Unfortunately when it comes to one-time
Acts of (ahem) God such as tsunamis,
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the pros in
the lab coats aren’t much more prescient than
the homeless guy on the street corner wearing
a sandwich board that reads THE END IS
NIGH.
Fisher admits that predicting such one-off
natural disasters such as the recent horror in
Japan is very difficult.
“Mind you,” he told a reporter for
Salon.com, “building a nuclear reactor on the
ring of fire doesn’t strike me as the most
sensible thing to do. Plenty of warning signs
there.”
So is it utterly pointless, trying to crystal-
ball the future? Len Fisher says there’s one
thing he’s utterly sure of.
“Continued population growth is going to
lead to catastrophe. Underlying it all – our
behaviour, our pollution, our use of resources,
the way we muck up ecosystems – underlying
all that is the fact that there are just too many
damn people. And there’s no way that
everyone in the world could live at a moderate
Western level.”
And that’s a prediction you can take to the
sperm bank.
Arthur
Black
Other Views The end is nigh. Details at eleven
It’s one of the most important moments in
the life of any mother or father. After hours
of labour, a new life has been born. The
doctor looks up. Congratulations, it’s a.... Not
so fast doc, the parents say, that ‘decision’ will
be made later.
A Toronto couple is leaving the issue of
gender up to their child. Kathy Witterick and
David Stocker have decided to raise their four-
month-old child, Storm, genderless. That’s
right. Storm doesn’t know what he/she is and
his/her parents aren’t going to tell him/her.
The story appeared in the Toronto Star late
last month and has caused plenty of
controversy between those who think the
couple is forward-thinking and those who
think the couple is crazy and abusive.
The idea that children are born the way
they’re born is something that has gathered
understanding in recent years. The idea that
children were ‘turned’ gay at one point in their
lives, and subsequently, can be ‘turned’ back is
one that is being left in the past and more and
more parents are supporting their children in
whatever lifestyle befits them.
Not surprisingly, the situation has quickly
become a political debate. Heather Mallick, the
Toronto Star columnist who was outspoken in
her support of the Toronto Slutwalk protest,
thinks Storm’s parents are idealistic.
She makes the point that in every school in
the world, there have been girls who liked their
hair short and boys who didn’t like to play
sports. She discussed David Sedaris, an openly
gay writer who had one of his grade school
teachers try and rid him of his lisp.
Using the example of Sedaris, I have no
doubt that if asked, Sedaris would be the first
to tell you that he is a man. He is a man who is
gay. He has a penis, he is a man.
Mallick says that Storm, and his/her siblings
Jazz and Kio, “have the next 80 years to be
obedient wage slaves and vote Conservative”.
The idea behind this social experiment is to
not weigh Storm down with the social baggage
that comes along with being a boy or a girl. I’m
sure it has very little to do with sticking it to
Stephen Harper as Mallick suggests, but then
again, I don’t know David and Kathy.
It seems to me that this man-made
controversy won’t last very long. Which public
bathroom will Storm use? What if Storm wants
to go swimming? Without boundaries like
gender, Storm will be free to wear a dress,
while playing football, for example, creating a
patchwork of the best of male and female
culture. I feel bad for the poor McDonald’s
employee on duty the next time Storm wants a
Happy Meal. “Boy or girl toy with that?”
So as opposed to being told that you live in
one of the greatest countries in the world and
you can do whatever you want with your life,
you can be anything you want to be and not be
persecuted and the world is open to you, these
parents have to take it a dozen steps too far.
Instead of helping their child along, they have
chosen to keep him/her in the dark.
The sex of a child is an anatomic fact. Storm
is either a boy or a girl. Leaving that ‘choice’
up to him/her is something that will simply
serve to confuse the child.
As much as I hate to keep pulling wisdom
from the movie Fight Club, it was Tyler
Durden who said, “sticking feathers up your
butt does not make you a chicken” and thusly,
wearing a dress does not make Storm a girl and
liking comic books does not make Storm a boy.
That ‘debate’ was settled months before Storm
even saw the light of day, no matter what kind
of social experiment his/her parents think
they’re pulling off.
What a good boy/girl
Arguments are a favourite past-time of
mine. Whether it be debates,
confrontations or demonstrations, I’m
a strong proponent of people providing their
point of view and speaking their mind.
Speaking your mind in public, however,
comes with responsibilities.
When I decided to work in such a public
position, I realized that I have to watch what I
say, either that or be prepared to back up
anything I say.
Whether that means limiting my ‘venting’ or
biting my tongue occasionally, I know that my
opinions carry further than they did when I
served coffee or pizza.
That responsibility isn’t one that I, or other
members of the media, bear alone.
Some people have the ear of dozens,
hundreds, thousands or millions of people and
they need to be careful how they use that
power.
If Oprah says a book is great, a great many
people will buy it, read it, and turn it into a
bestseller.
That kind of power cannot be taken lightly.
Last week I visited an opposition rally. It
was put on by Huron East Against Turbines,
also known as HEAT.
Now, before we get too deeply into this, I’ll
remind readers that I grew up in Seaforth and
owe quite a bit of who I am to people who live
there, so don’t misunderstand this column – I
love Huron East.
I’m not for, or against wind turbines. That’s
paramount in this column.
I don’t want people, especially those in
HEAT, to think I’m attacking their values. I’m
not.
Now, back to what I was saying –
arguments, debates, speeches, rallies – they’re
an important part of democracy, but they have
to focus on the issues at hand.
I’ve covered Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
Township Council for several years now and
I’ve seen the debate about wind turbines from
a township that currently has turbines in it.
I’ve also attended meetings by Central Huron
Against Turbines (CHAT) and HEAT, and I
have to say, I’m disappointed with the most
recent HEAT showing.
HEAT co-founder Rob Tetu took to the stage
first and reminded everyone that they were
representatives of their community and that
they should act accordingly.
No sooner had he said that than several of
the speakers got up and spoke to the heinous
acts of the Liberal government and assaulted
the characters of those elected (remember, we
elected them) in power.
Now, I’m not arguing for the Liberals, and
I’m certainly not arguing against HEAT. There
is more to this turbine issue than meets the
eye.
I’ve written lengthy stories regarding the
problems that some claim are caused by
turbines. I’ve met people who have told me
about their turbine problems, and I know that
they are convinced that their problems are
caused by wind turbines.
Maybe some turbines are different and
alleged problems related to infrasound, power
distribution or low frequency noise can be
attributed to them. I don’t know. I’m not an
expert on infrasound, electrical wiring,
turbines, windmills... or many other things.
What I am is someone who is always
interested in hearing a well presented case.
I didn’t hear it at the HEAT opposition rally.
What I did hear was a lot of people
blaming and demonizing the provincial
Liberal government.
That’s not how you argue.
There were many great points made, and, as
a reporter, it’s my job to separate the wheat
from the chaff and try to present those points;
however, as any debater will tell you, the
second you stop attacking your topic and start
attacking your adversary, you’ve as much as
lost.
Standing up and calling the turbines
indicators of the stupidity of the government,
for example, just makes me, as a third-party
observer, not as a reporter, want to walk away
from you.
Attacking a politician over a decision
they’ve made, when all politicians do is make
decisions based on the information consultants
and experts show them, just makes me think
your position, and evidence, is weak and
you’re trying to strengthen yourself by
weakening your opponent.
Debating, arguing, protesting... whatever
your poison, these events aren’t boxing
matches, you’re not trying to knock out your
opponent, you’re not trying to beat the other
guy by literally beating their reputation.
Arguing or convincing others is a race. It’s a
non-contact sport. Your goal should be to
convince the people you need to convince. You
need to get that information, that research or
that level of understanding to those who make
the decisions before your competitors.
The minute you start trying to throw elbows
into the next lane... well this race metaphor
isn’t great to begin with, but suffice to say the
debate falls apart.
You can counter their points, you can try to
show better, more relevant and more up-to-
date research, but you have to wear blinders.
You have to be oblivious to your competition’s
character, and know only their information.
Otherwise, you’re trying to throw a
punch while they’re sprinting down the
home stretch.
Shawn
Loughlin
Shawn’s Sense
Denny
Scott
Denny’s Den
The art of arguing seems forgotten