I acccept there was unprecidented out-pouring of help from individual Canadians immediately after the tsunami hit with so much destructive power. But to argue our government had to be embarassed into upping its generosity is misreading the events somewhat. Yes there was hesitency initially, but I would suggest that was the proper response. Quite frankly, the competiveness of various governments leap-frogging over the next country in increasing aid packages became an embarassment. I think Canasda offered help as quickly as it could in a responsible way. I wouldn't want to see hundereds of millions of Canadian tax dollars simply being handed over to governments in the problem areas because some of those government would as likely keep or divert the cash than actually use it to help their own citizens. Canada's measured steps were the correct approach rather even if they appeared after-the -fact in comparison to the donations from the public, which incidently was pretty much a captive audience to the ongoing story in a very slow-news period and during a time when emotions like sentiment and generosity are played to the max. As for the main story, it's encouraging that young Canadians care how we are seen and what we do, but I was disappointed the authors didn't offer a few concrete examples of better efforts. Sorry, but it read like an exercise in theory development.

Well, I don't know what to think of these "under 35" dudes. They certainly see the world from the perspective of a different social strata than I do; reflected in both the form and outcome of their analysis, in how they see the "citizen role", which is far removed again, from what I see currently, unless you've got more cash and education in your pocket than my class milieu.

So, let's be clear, these are not your average working class "under 35s". From this class/strata perspective, it all tasted like pretty much watered down, highfalutin pablum, frankly; assuming my palate isn't "that" much different from my class peers. And it could be, I concede.

I, at least, and I suspect a goodly number of "thinking" working class Canadians, and they certainly do exist, have a little more "raw" view of the direction in which Canadian society has to evolve in the unfolding future, if we are going to change our candy ass "middle power" role in the world. Which first means moving out from under the big dick impalement of the US Empire, (That Paul Martin really seems to be getting his rocks off on.) in what is beginning to look like the "decline phase" of "that" power's historical development. (And in which phase, it increasingly evidences a strong desire to draw closer to Big Lie Fascism-, talking, walking, and acting like it.)

Though, while I am generally in favour of an "egalitarian" globalization, and active "solidarity" between all "common folks" across all lands, including within the US, which seeks to raise the lesser to the higher, rejects current corporate capitalism's race to the bottom for all lower class elements, and the reactionary revival of more clear class demarcation lines that favour the ruling class wealthy within society.

That is certainly more to the point, I think, and leads to socially transformative solutions quite different from the wishy washy drift, under the heading in the article above, which asks, "What Is Governments Role?" And then it responds to its own question in the very vaguest of "politician speak" terms, whilst trying to sound all quite grand, that nonetheless on critical examination, while starting from a real enough premise, then goes absolutely nowhere with its own tail in its mouth.

There IS a problem with Canada's role in the world, no doubt. On that much we can agree. But whereas you see it in some kind of vague bureaucratic terms of non-specific vision and leadership, I suggest it lies more simply and clearly in the direction of moving away from those kinds of military, diplomatic and trade relationships with a militaristic and self-serving US Empire, that undercuts and undermines our desire to act "independantly", maintain a more egalitarian and compassionate social structure, and finally, act in our own economic and geo-political interests.

The reality is, that in the world taking shape, given the character and role of our southern neighbour, we have more in common with Europe than we do Imperial USA.

Only realizing that, can we then begin to talk about the kind of society we want to build and maintain internally-, and there again, I suggest, we also need to begin to move away from the model of "global corporate capitalism" as is being foisted onto us by US and even our own globally connected "corporate" interests, and readily agreed to by an economic ruling class as a whole, and its political elite, that has never had confidence in our own ability to be an independant power anyway, save very briefly and modestly under perhaps Trudeau. This class is, as it has historically been since the time of British Empire influence in this country, now quite content licking Yankee boots.

At the same time then, that we truly and finally attempt this completion of our "national" development, to here having always been more fictional and "formal" than real, we can begin to seriously talk about a real living economic and political democracy for this country.

Plainspeak is what we need here, not more politician speak wishy washy. This was mostly just so much intellectual jibber-jabber.

Ya know, Ron, I'm not willing to trade bilingualism or the seal hunt for *anything,* really -- certainly not for this kinda nebulous impressing-the-foreigners scheme Eaves and Kara are on about. I can't be cavalier about Canadianness; I just wonder if it's something we really need to export. Even if we did everything these guys are suggesting, what, really, would be the benefit to us?// Sorry if that sounds harsh. But look, there's a very limited amount that a nation like ours can do to relieve the miseries of the world. All we really need is to maintain peaceful trading relationships with foreign markets, and it's not clear to me how pouring money into the military (the rightist solution for our apparently-declining "influence" in the world) or pouring cash into NGO charity outfits (the left's solution) is going to help that. Sure, we can "promote" democracy ("Look! The Canucks are giving us the thumbs-up! Let's depose our tyrants!")and we can certainly help some of the very poor and sick around the globe... oops, I gotta go, may post more later.

Nice mix of pragmatism and idealism. I'd like to hear more about these young folks.

I concur, Kurt. Very encouraging. Not only to see a newer generation of thoughtful, articulate men and women picking up the torch but also to see the torch itself being re-examined.

Google the phrase "canada multiculturalism role model" sometime.

Along with the ethnophobic ranting of the narrow minded you'll also find some rather surprising and encouraging things from the international community. This I think is one of the useful starting points for what I perceive these folks to be suggesting.

I wish them all the good fortune they can put up with.

The statement, "Our government has not grasped the social and technological transformations" is very correct. Government, NGOs and other institutions are composed of "HUMAN-INDIVIDUALS" . Human-individuals determine how good any institution is. Governments are composed of human-individuals, who are primarily older-men, and who are not required to have any intellectual-ability, the vast majority are not surgeons or ER doctors, they are not scientists or engineers. These human-individuals have never been on the ground in a natural disaster, hence they have minimal ability in an emergency. Until the human-individuals serving as government/elected-representatives are required to have abilities, government cannot improve.

"In short, globalization is transforming a world formerly dominated by a hierarchy of states into a complex global network of actors—a chaotic structure where states, NGOs, companies, and individual citizens can all play critical roles on an international playing field."

What utter hyperbole. The globalization to which we are witness is, in the first place, "a hierarchy of..." primarily one dominant imperialist state, and a number of other "emerging" challengers to its world dominance-, in the first place China, followed or tentatively still preceded by the new Europe, at this point largely on the basis of the strength of its currency , measured against that of the US Empire. Russia is, post the collapse of "Communism" there, struggling to regain its feet and recover its place in the world-, but even early indications are, around the issue of Iraq and US efforts to exercise hegemony in the Balkans and in other areas about its border, like in the 'stan countries, where the US Empire much seeks to checkmate Russias traditional development in these regions, when and as it does recover, is clearly on a collision course of competing strategic interests with US, and possibly European ambitions. So clearly, rather than the model globalized world community which these "under 35" boys and girls are attempting to manufacture for us, the world is much still those same global "capitalist" interests which competed and clashed in two world wars, carried over from the days of the great British Empire, now gone to its sunset, and brought forward into these days of the US Empire.

The more things change, to here anyway, the more things remain fundamentally the same. Merely some of the actors and their roles are somewhat changed in global capitalisms ongoing geo-political game of musical chairs. So our "young" friend's analysis is fundamentally flawed from the get go, to say nothing of too naive, by at least half.

"As a result, the Middle Power framework – the pillar of our international identity for fifty years that allowed us to successfully navigate a world dominated by superpowers – no longer serves its purpose."

They never say it out and out here, of course, but this all has a Paul Martin Liberal ring to it, that makes the conclusion they want us to draw, fairly obvious. It's the same one Paul Martin has drawn. For these chaps and lasses, if Kurt and Dana are any indication, lapping this article's analysis up as the do, certainly reject any approach that might "be found offensive or challenging" of our southern militaristic neighbour. That being, that in the spirit of this new era of "corporate" globalization, we should not draw away from this "power embrace" of the US Empire, but draw closer to its traditional patriarchal warmth, and seek to accomodate it.

Now, where have I heard this all before. Again, it is certainly anything but new. It is more the regurgitated economics and politics of the past, in fact, sanitized, perfumed up, given some intellectual flavour enhancers, and served up as "new" grub to those of us unsuspecting, or not given to, "too critical" intellectual instincts of our own.

The more time one spends in analyzing the minutia and direction of this stone soup gruel, the less real policy nourishment there is in it. It is standard, what we used to call, "bourgeois" :-) intellectual fare, as has been around, at least, for all of my 66 years.

David and Nadim, if you happen by, read "coyote" carefully for he is articulating one of the nuggets of paradigmatically polarized received wisdom which you will find raised in opposition to any headway you might make.

It may be old hat but it's still pervasive .

I really studied this one. Does the word, "specious" ring a bell. So the citizens are way out in front of the government because we were a bit quicker to get online with our credit cards and our fifty dollar donations. And that proves that, "our government has not grasped the social and technological transformations that enable individual Canadians to engage the world and become foreign policy actors in a way that did not exist fifty or a hundred years ago." Uh...yeah....uh, things tend to change in fifty or a hundred years, but even then, there were some ways individuals could respond faster than governments. One is, of course, tempted to make the observation that if individuals are making such a massive contribution to the betterment of the world, what...uh... seems to be the problem? Maybe they are able to operate in an environment of diminished encumbrances. Furthermore, apparently: "As employees, consumers, business owners, investors, aid workers, vacations and above all, citizens, the decisions we make increasingly shape Canada's reputation and influence irrespective of the initiatives undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs, or the Prime Minister." (above all, CITIZENS, eh) Well, if the citizens are so successful, regardless of what the government does, what exactly is the need for the massive shift in policy or awareness that the writers seem so fond of? This seems to suggest that the government could make a better contribution by just getting out of the way. Certainly, to follow the exigency of the argument, globalization and technological advances have already pre-empted the usefulness of governments. "Globalization is transforming a world formerly dominated by a hierarchy of states into a complex global network of actors...." and "Our government could start by reorganizing itself..." So anyway, this is what's known as much ado about nothing, or more colloquially, bull shit, eh. Have fun, though kids. You'll get yourself some kind of mandate eventually. People respond to this kind of stuff. Half the governments in power started out like this. Hmmm, from middle to model, eh. You have concluded, a priori, that Canada does not have enough influence in the world. Uh...we have thirty million people--not a hundred and thirty million. If we could measure influence as a per capita ratio I think we're way ahead of the mark already. Not that we couldn't do better, of course. As a kind of prospectus of involvement I congratulate the authors, but I'm not convinced of the intrinsic authenticity of their claims. To wit: "Today all Canadians play a role in how Canada engages the world." Really! Personally, I think our government should commission think tanks on how develope bs detectors.

"Today all Canadians play a role in how Canada engages the world." quotes Truman Green.

A good piece of writing, Truman. To me, this quote is the funniest one, of a great many, in this "immature" piece of political analysis, and the most revealing of where these chaps are coming from, on a whole number of different levels. Otherwise they would have never so naively even included it.

Though I agree again with your observation, "Have fun, though kids. You'll get yourself some kind of mandate eventually. People respond to this kind of stuff. Half the governments in power started out like this." True, given the intellectual level of what typically passes for status quo politics in this country. These youngsters, at least, need some years still under their belts-, and a little serious hardship wouldn't hurt either.

When the American Revolution had finally succeeded about 1780 or so, the newly independent Americans wanted to elect George Washington king. Fortunately he was a somewhat bigger individual than that. He resisted the temptation and established the corporate style democratic scheme that endured there until the nineteen sixties, and was so influential in the world . He based it on the writings of Jefferson and Paine and the humanist philosophers of the 18th century, and it was a pretty well balanced diverse scheme even capable of some nobility now and then when called for.

But, if not for these few highly principled and honourable people, it could have easily been a real disaster.

Now that we're so far into this 'Capitalist Revolution' the neo cons are replacing it with, I can't help searching around for the Jeffersons and Washingtons of this movement. Nobody really shines out there, do they? Ayn Rand? Probably not entirely sane. Howard Hughes? Definately not entirely sane. Henry Ford? Better, but his philosophy is ignored even by his own family.

This Globalization idea has some potential in this age of rapid communication and transport. It could usher in an era where the rule of law extends everywhere, and genocide and institutional abuses become criminal matters at last, with appropriate policing and due process and penalties for corrupt leaders, juntas and warlords wherever they pop up.

Instead we've got the Bush family refusing to allow the establishment of independent international law, and using military force to advance illegitimate corporate agendas, and a corporate community that most resembles the mafia and seems to be operating the biggest bank robbery since the Medicis. Nobody even objecting to the robberies, the looting of national treasuries, the abandonment of all moral and civic duties and responsibilities. Genocide and slavery are back in a big way, and who is doing anything about it?

Coyote, I agree with your assessment. These young people may be pretty green, but they're are our only hope to turn around this global crime wave and provide the battered old world with some real leadership. A touch of nobility and some high principle to be going on with. A few people who understand that humans vary widely, and that's a good thing. All must be allowed to thrive somehow.

Otherwise I really think it's time to be thinking about establishing the new monastary system to preserve the world's knowledge and culture for whatever awaits afterward.

Good that these chaps have a lot of time to 'grow-up'and see how the world works. I was fed the same wasting drivel in school as well.

A really fine and insightful piece, Bailey. And whilst I think these young people reached beyond the level of their understanding in this instance, I would certainly not want that they should be so discouraged by my "somewhat" combative style :-), (which comes with a Degree in Class Politics, from the University of The Street), that they give up trying to understand the world and society in which they live altogether. (Too many young, and not so young, have given up on that as it is, it seems to me-, and merely await whatever comes down the pipe with stoic fatalism.) They must simply be better prepared however, in this arena, to have their ideas critically examined-, as must I and thee no less.

Again, I thought your response here was in the best, non-pretentious and balanced intellectual tradition. And that always gets my respect.

Bailey: You might not be overly impressed with my source here, but a billionaire talk show host once said, "When people tell you who they are, BELIEVE THEM." She didn't know who "untouchables" are, but she's pretty street smart, eh. She said she thought they were the highest class in India, and named so, because they were so elite that noone could touch them. Sorry, I've gotten off my subject a bit...oh yeah--Canada25-- I don't sense immaturity or naivety here, but rather cynicism and cleverness--a disrespect for the intelligence of their readers. There's barely a single sentence here that makes sense, or is syllogistically, or even logically viable. I hope you're wrong about such people being our only hope for the future. Incidentally, I see your comments all over the place and enjoy your obvious intellect, but I want to ask you a serious question: Do you think the world is a better place today than it was say, fifty or a hundred years ago, or even when Washinton was crossing that river, and Francis Scott Key was writing, "Oh say can you see?" I know this is broad, but I'd really like to know. A sentence or two perhaps?

Yeah, Canada should increase it's military budget; it's pathetically low and not much good for anything but embarrassment. But then, I can see why: this nation ain't got no militaristic vision, either for defence or offence.

But then, I can see why: Canada has got no known predators. I mean, who in the hell is even thinking of going out their way to shoot a Canadian as a result of our foreign policy or practices, eh? Let's see, on the Atlantic side we have Britain, Ireland, France, Spain, Portugual, Morocco, (nah, nah, nah...). Okay, no one there. Let's look at the Pacific rim. Russia (not lately), N or S Korea (nah), Japan (nah), China (nah)... okay, no one there either. What about South and Central America, then? Brazil, Peru, Argentina, et al,? (nah), or Honduras, El Salvador, et al? (again, nah). Damn it! This country needs some serious enemies!

Solution: We must launch agressive maneuvers against Greenland and Iceland. Those countries have been encroaching on Baffin Island and other Artic islands for far too long. And on the west coast, what's up with that Alaska panhandle thingy, anyway? We must take back that incursion into our domain.

Now then, that'll put us on the military map (ie. world influence) in this strike first, blow-'em-off-with-bs-later era. So just forget all about that namby-pamby peacekeeping baloney. That ain't fit for boy scouts even.

God, I can't wait till that little war-monger Harper is PM.

I AM CANADIAN®

"The challenge then becomes this: Can we replicate this process with equal success on issues (such as environmental preservation, international health, managing the U.S. relationship and ensuring the spread of free and fair trade) that are core to the national interests of Canadians?" - David Eaves and Nadim Kara (In a Jon Stewart tone of voice), Ah, David, Nadim, just a little... ah, note here, but Canada's struggling badly with the U.S. on environmental trans-boundary issues, like the Artic Wildlife refuge and U.S. plans to drill for oil there, and there's a some cross-border waterway pollution issues; on health, we dropped the ball on bird flu, SARS, & BSE; meanwhile, we mustn't overlook our softwood lumber, wheat, cattle, and prescription-drug "free-trade" issues with the good ole folks to the south. So then, just thinking aloud here, but maybe we should just look after our backyard more closely before we begin landscaping the frontyard for the sake of our foreign acquaintances... Just a thought (/end of Jon Stewart tone of voice)

Truman Green; I like your question. It's exactly the kind of impossible question that always grabs my interest. Of course the easy answer is better than what? You obviously have to set a standard for comparison to judge anything better or worse. Very difficult to do for something as complex as a world.

Some people are advancing in ways that astound me. Morally and ethically and spiritually. But those tend not to be chosen to lead. Still they exist, and have whatever influence they can. Others are behaving abominably in high places, and causing damage they are incapable of even understanding, much less ever fixing.

It occurred to me some years ago that the people who were our (I mean the world's, not necessarily Canada's) leaders were oddly unsuited to lead, and I wondered why such duds were rising so high. It seemed like the First World War had wiped out the best of a whole generation. I think the qualities of a good leader are many, a sense of duty, generosity of spirit, courage, a degree of moral uprightness,by which I mean fairness and evenhandedness more than any religious value.

All the qualities that led you to be first over the top in 1914, straight into the teeth of the machine guns. The world could coast along on the strength of the old guard for a while, but then, twenty years later, when the old men were finishing up and going, and the new crop of young leaders were just coming of age, along came WWII and we did it again. Wiped out the bravest and noblest among us, the ones who would naturally have risen to lead as they matured and ripened, and this time there was no old guard to carry us through.

For forty years the world had to suffer through the rule of people who were by nature middle managers at best. Hacks and second-raters without the vision to understand the process let alone direct it. How else to explain somebody like Richard Nixon? DeGaulle? Wilson? Thatcher? Reagan? When somebody with the stuff to inspire us did arise, like Kennedy, the weasels wiped him out. The young ones now have nobody to teach them how. The only role models they might have are poor ones indeed. And, like the incompetent everywhere, these are jealous of the positions they must on some level know they are not worthy to hold. They will not raise the next generation if they can avoid it, even if they were able to recognise the stuff leaders are made of at all.

The only values they can see and understand are numbers, so they put huge value on riches, and mistake it for virtue, and they don't have a clue why things aren't working. On the plus side, production is up. We make a huge amount of stuff. On the down side, human happiness and satisfaction with our lot in life is way, way below where it was.

So, better in some ways, much worse in others, problems abound and shift about and our leaders can't see beyond the bottom line, like hacks and pencil pushers everywhere.

At least we havent wiped out a whole generation for a while, and the young ones, even without proper guidance, with any luck will soon grow up. Then we'll see if there's a good answer to your question.

Well I don't like the (Global) in anything. Globalization is a danger to everyone of us at this stage of the game, we are to driven by money and monitary control and power hungry. well, atleast the rich elite are, and they are the ones at the helm of the ship steering us onto the rocks of one world government controled by mega rich corporations. _-------------__-------------------------------- --- " globalization is transforming a world formerly dominated by a hierarchy of states into a complex global network of actors—a chaotic structure where states, NGOs, companies, and individual citizens can all play critical roles on an international playing field." Globalization has nothing to do with induviduals and everything to do with money. I agree with SGT canuck we need to upgrade our military. our military can play a huge role in disaster responce as well as defence and peacekeeping. Ever since the fall of the avro arrow our military has been neglected. we have well a trained military but the lack of hardware makes their job alot harder and less effective. We let this laps for so long now we are doing a 20year upgrade on a handfull of hardware. would you fly in a seaking everyday for work? cost more to keep them flying then getting a new bird to replace it. It is sad that it has gone as far as it has. If we want to be effective i disaster responce we need the planes to fly them their if all our planes are in afganistan then we can't transport emergancy supplies to the tsunami zone can we?

Bailey: I really enjoyed reading that, and I bet others did, too. You gave a very interesting, thoughtful answer to a pretty impossible question. The question of whether we are getting better always intrigues me, and I think your response was probably as good as it gets. I get discouraged some days with all the bad news but other times it does seem like great fun being a human being. Having people respond sincerely to a sincere question is pretty nice, too.

"We make a huge amount of stuff. On the down side, human happiness and satisfaction with our lot in life is way, way below where it was." wrote Bailey.

I recognize that there are large numbers of folks out there, even within our own reputedly "advanced" society, who don't have enough "stuff", including food, as a reflection of the gross social inequalities in our society. That said, what Bailey says is still true at an important level, I think: That there is more to this issue of "happiness" and "satisfaction" than the quantity of stuff we produce and consume. (Though I'd still choose not to be poor, for friggin' sure. Been there. Done that.) But this is "the other side of life" and social reality, mixed in there and hidden, suppressed with all the material "inequality issues", more than any other, without downplaying the importance of material poverty as an issue, that our "advanced" capitalist society seems especially unable or unwilling to get at and resolve.

Though, I personally, don't think there is any real mystery to why that is, for its there, stark and obvious enough, or should be to any "thinking" working person certainly, in the very way the society is structured itself, and in the system of "power" distribution and priority interests it serves. Out of which, the net result, even amidst "relative" material affluence compared to the rest of the world, there remains so much fundamental unhappiness and an overwhelming sense of "victimhood" and "powerlessnes". And its justified, is the reality. It is a consequence of the heirarchical class arrangment of society itself, not so much different from the "caste" system of some other societies as we might like to delude ourselves.

There cannot be societal peace without a level of material wellbeing equitably distributed across its citizens, especially when that materiality is distributed grossly inequitably, and there can be no peace without real "power" over the economic and political prerequisites of one's societal life. Without that "significant" power input ability built into the social structure of the economy as well as political life, one is in fact "powerless", and much a "victim" of circumstances controlled entirely by others. What "happiness" can there be in that? Unless, of course, one stands on the higher ground in that arrangement, of course.

While I much agree with Bailey, I am a little clearer, at least in my own mind, that life even now, for the "average" person, while it may be some "materially" better, and that is a good thing, it is still not "that much different" from the 1930s or the Industrial Revolution of the 17th Century in many other regards. We are, most of us, still much the victims of circumstances created and controlled near entirely by others. (And an X on a ballot every four years, for a Tweedle-dee or a Tweedle-dum, as important a gain as that was in its time, does not change the essential truth of it.)

That, as much or more even, than the material circumstances of our lives, is what has to change.

"However, our gov't could start by reorganizing itself to make better use of a whole new range of powerful, and sometimes unpredictable, foreign policy actors: its own citizens". Have to keep them here first. Honestly, I have few friends who have not lived OUTSIDE Canada for the better part of a decade during their 20-35 yrs; many have been overseas over a decade and will likely never come home, nevermind take part in this- whatever it is they are talking about exactly. The gov't's greatest challenge is keeping young Canadians on Canadian soil- do they not get it?? Public policy discourse?? When the student loan debt starts looming the last thing on a young person's mind is "Oh- maybe I'll pop down to the forum tonight and engage in discourse on how to re-model Canada's role in the world". Yeah, right... more like "get me a plane ticket out of this place". But then, I paid my own way through school and am probably more than a little jaded at a fairly young age...

For starters, globalization is not a process, it’s a product of evolving technology, and like it or not, a constant reminder that we live in Marshall McLuhan’s global village. Globalization is reaction, not causation.

Folks in Canada donated to the tsunami crisis for reasons much the same as most folks around the world did; the media was compelled to provide effect, current, unbiased coverage of an unimaginable tragedy that tugged at the human heart. Those that contributed did so without any concern over political bafflegab about “asymmetric effectiveness” … It was virtually impossible to add political or corporate spin to this crisis without exposing the media and politicians as cold, ruthless gauleiters.

Replicating the (tsunami) process of generating concern, over issues that have profound impacts on the wellbeing of Canadians, is a monumental task. It would require a rethinking of the value and purpose of some very powerful institutions. And those institutions are not going to take change (threats to their wellbeing) lying down.

Coyote, I studied your last comment. (Thanks for your comment re. my comment, by the way.) I tend not to think that my circumstances are mostly controlled by others, but I'm willing to give it more thought. Somehow, I've gotten into the habit of comparing my situation with slaves in Mississippi in say, 1820, or "nuisance" street orphans in Honduras or Brazil being shot for target practice, or women in Pakistan being burned alive because they were seen talking to a man out of the company of their husbands, or couldn't bring a suitable dowry. The list of human rights' atrocities is probably endless. I understand that there are huge inequities here, too, but--and I know you're aware of this--compared to so many other times and places, we're truly living in a top of the line country, which may, in fact be as good as it gets. There were homeless people sleeping in the bush a couple of hundred feet from my trailer last year, so I may not be living completely in a "fool's paradise." I just feel grateful a lot... no storm troopers bashing in my door, no bombs sending body parts into the sky; and now Tyee... I don't have to choose between Ferry and Spector for opinion pieces and commentary. I'm poor, but I once wasn't. I'm having way more fun now. I also find myself wondering if, given the flaws in our human personalities, the equitible distribution of resources you refer to may not be on. I mean...there's dissatisfied people driving down the King George Highway in $50,000 SUVs and in Nairobi there's a slum of 1,000,000 people living in filty hovels on a hundred dollars a year. How do you fix this nonsense?

"...compared to so many other times and places, we're truly living in a top of the line country, which may, in fact be as good as it gets." wrote Truman.

And which may be as good as it gets, indeed. None of us knows with entire certainty, but only I think, if we assume that there is no potential for further evolution left in the human species and society. Which it certainly is in the interests of some to have us think, though I do not. I simply refuse to. (I'm sure as well, there are many strong women out there, for example, who are not prepared to concede that what is, is the best it gets either.)

Is that all there is?

But there are no guarantees, for bloody sure. We may just be at the outer limits of the species and its social form potential. (I suspect sometimes, my friend KWD, though I should be careful of putting words in his mouth, probably thinks so. Though his article directly above here is, I also think, absolutely outstanding, especially in its conclusion. Which contradicts my previous suspicion of him.)

In the end though, you nor I, of ourselves, is likely going to be able to change very much about the world into which we have been shat out. It depends much on what conclusions about their lives and society, and their relationship to nature, "large" numbers of people come to, and are prepared to ACT upon. (ACTION, in the final analysis, being pivotal, as opposed to mere words and rhetoric, which of themselves are impotent.) And the same holds true for those slum folks in Nairobi, of which you spoke.

And it is clear I think, to me anyway, with the accumulating evidence of global warming, the failure of a number of important natural systems, such as is manifest in the ocean fisheries failures, and the large masses of people on the move around the world right now, attempting to flee to safe places , find enough food and opportunities for themselves and their future generations, that a large scale human extinction event is already underway. And nowhere is it more evident right now, than in Africa certainly, around AIDS, poverty and no longer adequate societal forms in changed material and geo-political conditions. So when people sometimes choose to content themselves with doing nothing, following what seems like merely the line of least resistance at the time, they have unknown to themselves, really and objectively chosen in favour of eventual extinction.

Now, as for those folks in parts of the world, like many places in Africa right now, the degree to which we can realistically assist them, we certainly should. Much of what we do even there however, for example around the devastation of AIDS in Africa, lost in the "media event" of the tsunami, is again being limited and sabotaged by big corporate drug companies, reflecting the real, as opposed to merely "professed" values of the socio-economic form in which they are rooted, putting their own "patent right" economic interests ahead of the survival of massive numbers of an entire race of people. It's obscene, a kind of holocaust being committed. And we haven't even begun yet to talk about the massive and wasteful levels of military spending by the major "competing" capitalist states.

So again, much depends on what conclusions they and we draw and act upon about this world's societal state of affairs.

Though my own conclusion remains, as it has been for much of my life, that we have not so much come up against the limits of the "species" , as we have come up against the limitations of the way in which many of us think about ourselves and our place in the scheme of things, and choose to socially and economically organize ourselves.

In short, Corporate Capitalism, whilst it is able indeed, to keep "some" amongst us in mansions and SUV's, that is built and predicated upon the starvation, ignorance, powerlessness and impoverishment of large masses of people, and warring upon backward peoples in many other parts of the world with resources they desire/need to serve their own interests. And much of all this state of affairs exists even in those places where "the system" is most successful. Enter the US Empire and its retinue of "hangers on" and emulators, like Canada, with their own large scale levels of poverty and powelessness etc, and even a quasi-kind of reservation apartheid system for some, amidst great wealth for others, and massive crime rates.

If I am right, we are approaching a crisis point in the evolution of human society as a whole, in particular the dominant capitalism. If I am wrong, the leopard will suddenly change its spots.

Coyote: "....In short, Corporate Capitalism, ...is able indeed, to keep "some" amongst us in mansions and SUVs...is built and predicated upon the starvation, ignorance, powerlessness and impoverishment of large masses of people..." Yes, this is, unfortunately undoubtedly true. Perhaps the wealth of this place, measured in personal freedom and relative well being, is part of a global zero-sum game in which the success of one place always precipitates the failure of another--the ultimate pessimism, I know, but there's a pretty good case for it in world history--sort of like Einstein's cosmological constant. Maybe we should ask David Eaves and Nadim Kara about this. I bet they're reading. It was, after all, their new think tank which inspired these comments.

I have to say when you read the sheer depth of Coyote's and KWD's pieces and a number of the other comments, (I especially, liked Fi's "whatever it is they are talking about exactly"), you feel the innate flimsiness of this article that is also laced with a certain kind of ego. Surely, throughout our history, Canadians have often acted courageously and independently - this is not a new phenomenon, so the self-congratulatory applause is not necessary. We are standing on the edge of an abyss right now, with the power of the individual in real jeopardy. I think there is hope but first we must at least be honest with ourselves.

"I think there is hope but first we must at least be honest with ourselves." wrote Lynn.

It simply warrenting repeating.

And I had not wanted to charge our authors of the lead article here with manifesting that kind of ego, which felt it could mess with our "lesser heads" with intellectual jibber-jabber, and we would not notice it-, but as Truman Green, Fi, and Lynn here have remarked or intimated, it really is obvious enough.

Which begs the further repeating of an old observation, that there is being Educated, and then there is being educated. And there is more to a lucid intelligence than having a university degree, as these chaps have helped make clear once again.

I must head into The Big City for supplies tomorrow, before we get another big snow through these passes. Catch ya's all in a few.

Coyote, I think you’re finally coming around; “we have come up against the limitations [that are a result] of the way in which many of us think about ourselves and our place in the scheme of things”. But it remains to be seen whether or not the way our thinking changes will improve the way we deal with other limiting factors. The following ramble may clear up your (mis)interpretation of how I interpret the “outer limits of the species”. That which controls the distribution and abundance of most earthly life forms also controls Homo sapiens. Malthusian space, Lorenz’s territorial imperative (war), overspecialization, natural catastrophe (global pandemics, meteorite, environmental change), and available and accessible energy all have parts to play in species success. What separates the rest of the planet from Homo sapiens is the fact we also have the ability to redefine, through technology and technological change, the limits of most controls; intrinsic as well as extrinsic.

We seem to have technological solutions to the problems of overcrowding; we seem to be able to survive wars, and we seem to survive natural calamity with some measure of success (the avian flu may be the exception). Ultimately however, the factor (under our control, to some degree, through changing technology) that has and will continue to have the biggest impact on our future success is energy. We are where we are, in terms of population size, environmental encroachment and destruction, and affluence, not because of social, economic and political structures, but because of our easy access to a vast supply of cheap energy; particularly hydrocarbon. The world has become a global village because of our ability, through technology, to incorporate fossil fuels into every aspect of our lives (Marshall McLuhan was stating the obvious). There is no aspect of our daily living (food, clothing, shelter) that isn’t influenced by or entirely dependent upon the petrochemical industry.

But the petrochemical well is drying up. And our preoccupation with the struggles of social, economic and political growth has allowed us to ignore “K”, the carrying capacity of a world without loads of cheap energy.

Barring nuclear annihilation or disease we will survive in a world without oil, but at much reduced numbers. Developing an infrastructure to ease the transition into energy from fuel cells, nuclear, wind, tidal and solar requires time; more time than the predicted life of oil. In order to keep the numbers where they are today – six billion plus – the alternate energy folks need divine intervention because today’s economic and political structures simply get in the way of thoughtful solutions.

Wow. I just logged on tonight for the first time since the op-ed went up, and it's been a pleasure to read this commentary. A little bruised and battered, but invigorated as well. I'm going to go over your comments tonight and chat with Dave about posting our reflections in the next few days. Thanks for taking the time to read, and to write. Nadim

"In order to keep the numbers where they are today – six billion plus – the alternate energy folks need divine intervention because today’s economic and political structures simply get in the way of thoughtful solutions." writes KWD.

Busy, busy, readying things for the trip to town on the 'morrow, but I had to peek and see what was here. A brief response to KWD.

Actually, I was going to say, that I thought you were coming around. :-) Mayhaps however, we have merely had to traverse the long way 'round, from different directions to arrive at this shared point. Though I have really always known it.

Not rambling at all. A brilliant piece this, your last comments, I think. With which I am in near entire agreement.

But especially with your above quote here. I think we actually see the same essential problem set, and the subjective human "intellectual" grasp of its dimensions and implications, or lack thereof, on the part of the great mass of people. Which bodes not well for the immediate to mid term future, upon which we are both also probably agreed.

But where we certainly arrive at the same point is, "...today's economic and political structures simply get in the way of thoughtful solutions."

Amen, to that. I say it so much, I sometimes stop, thinking folks must be getting sick of hearing me say so.

First is the objective, underlying reality, of which you speak so articulately here, then comes our "understanding", or lack thereof... Is it correct or not?... then comes our preparedness, or unwillingness, to take "actions" to adjust our ability to respond to these underlying global material realities, socio-economically and politically.

Where we seem to be hung up, first, is at that "level of public understanding" place, the precondition that is needed in order to effect the narrow self-interest of priviledged class elements that drive our socio-economic and political institutions, exacerbating the problems at our interface with nature, and undermining the societal peace and material needs of the mass of human society. (Six billion people is probably simply unsustainable as well, I agree, judging from the "natural systems" failures already occurring in many places about the globe, and the frequent turf/resource wars going on, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, though I would like to hear more knowledgable opinions on that. And no, I do not advocate death camps or any "artificial" euthanasia system.)

I think we will get to it eventually-, that humans have the resiliance to be able to do so in the end, but not before there is a significant worsening of the global situation, unfortunately, and even within the reputedly most "advanced" societies, such as ours. There is not yet the sense of "urgency" that is going to have to be there, on the part of, again, masses of people-, driving them to act. (Not necessarily "everybody".) (And I have this nagging fear of, what I see as, emerging US fascism, and our "Poland" geographical position to them.) Already over the last twenty years, in fact, if one has been paying attention, since the early 80s, the downward trend in the lives of most of us, ordinary folks, has become firmly established.

Thus far, it is a crap shoot trying to figure out when it will turn around. Clearly though, going back to where both of us started out from here, not before there is a big change occurs in very many people's thinking within our society. On the one side, there is too much simple following the line of least resistance, that of immediate personal self-interest, while on the other, there is still too much waiting for the second coming of a Messiah.

The calm before the storm?

Now I have rambled. Oh well, too late now.

"...there is still too much waiting for the second coming of a Messiah." - Coyote

Coyote, you're are our Messiah!

Especially, given the amount of free time on your hands...

Coyote, I think we’ve always been reading the same book (perhaps on different pages) with the same objective: To promote a more egalitarian society.

Given that within the basic building block of society - the nuclear family - the concept of equality is too often ignored, any expectation that it might spread outside the family into more complex social constructs, any time soon, seems rather Pollyannaish. But I do hope, more and more, that people will begin to recognize that the issues that divide and separate go deeper than class or colour or gender or ethnicity.

The long traverse, from different directions, that you mention underscores the need to look outside those issues, and the confines of our comfortable ideological ‘ism’ boxes - whether we think of ourselves as left, right, Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Marxist, environmentalist, capitalist, whatever - and ask what seems to be an extremely difficult question: “Why? Why do we think the way we do?” The answer really isn’t that difficult, but the outcome of its acknowledgement seems to make acceptance incredibly painful. And there is good reason; most institutions, religious and secular, that have laid out the rules of life, and tell us how we must think and behave, will have to admit they have removed natural philosophy and basic logic from honest discussion.

Ottawa is irrelevent both nationally and internationally. We have no military thus no foreign influence. We can't even mount a peace keeping operation anymore. If a Tsunami hits here we will be almost completely dependent on the US, Australia and Europe for aid. What a pathetic state of affairs for a country that was once a significant player on the world stage. The lead singer of U2 said the world needs more Caanda, yet we continue to shirk our international responsibilities and freeload off of other coutnries. Smugly self satisfied that no US President would ever dare send us the cheque, well Bush in his visit to Ottawa threatened to do just that. Wakey wakey, we better start standing on our own feet as a nation before we find it stolen as we lay smugly napping.

So who is it exactly that Canada needs defending from? A Tsunami? A country? Missiles from some unknown orgin? Yaaawwwn... wake me when you've got a decent answer. Mind you, if you cite Sgt. Canuck's astute recommendation then you're onto something!

I'd vote for Coyote for Messiah. At least he's on the job trying to figure things out. That other one just keeps on hiding, and after two thousand years he's still a "no show." Hey Nadim Kara, wherefore art thou?

I agree Truman, I kind of like the image of Mr. and Mrs. Coyote travelling into the Big City for supplies with a bright star above guiding them there and back!

Forgive them father, they know not what they rant on about.

Wakey, wakey, you sound somewhat flakey. Open your eyes fellow. The yanks have been stealing us dry forever and are unlikely to stop until the last barrel of oil crosses the border. It's not an improved military that is so needed as much as improved CANADIAN politicians who know what "our" priorities should be. Bush leads a government that is pressing us to abolish universal health care, Employment Insurance benefits, human rights and a whole rack of other social services. Why? Because we are apparently embarrassing Bush and friends with our wild generosity toward our fellow citizens. Please explain to me who, other than the Americans, would we have to fear if the U.S. opted for a unilateral defence policy?

Actually, reconsidering, I think we should let Coyote off the Messiah hook - too hard for a mere mortal to live up to the billing and it would take all the fun away - and along with Messiahs come followers who believe there is no longer a necessity for them to think or act for themselves, allowing them to shirk all responsibility for outcomes...and then there's always the question of Judas...

The Danes, the United States and Russia are all laying claim to Canadian territory in the arctic. Because of our own lack of a military the federal government recently signed an agreement to let the US station troops on Canadian soil in the event of an emergency. Wakey wakey is right that by shirking our national and international responsibilities as a moderate middle power we have become insignificant on the world stage and increasingly a puppet of the United States. Note that due to our lack of military forces we have agreed to let the US station troops on our soil in the event of an emergency. The irony is that the left hates to see money spent on the military because they think it makes us more like the uS, while ouur own lack of a military is helping to erode our sovereignty as a nation. We are sleep walking our way towards being nothing more than protectorate of the United States.

Truman Green has the right idea again! An Elected Messiah! It's a great idea. I really think it would sharpen up the performance of many elected officials if there was a good chance we could crucify them after three years of service.

There's probably a great American Cross manufacturer who uses Chinese prisoners for labour and stolen Southeast Asian lumber who could be offered the contract, if the moneychangers in the temple get sufficient kickbacks.

Bailey, thanks for the extended laughing jag that put me into.

Truman, I think Nadim knows where she is. My guess is she's still trying to figure out the why part ...

Perhaps if Canada had a viable military and corageous political leadership the Rwandan Genocide could have been prevented....

I found the article so vague that I didn't get the point! As for Canada and the anti-landmine agreement that the writers laud as evidence of good things we've done lately--hasn't anyone heard? Our government is presently violating that agreement (both international and national law) by co-operating with corporate arms manufacturers.