Why is James Damore listed alongside Andreesen and Zuckerberg? Andreesen and Zuckerberg have hundreds of billions at their disposal and Damore was an employee fired for giving feedback on a company diversity program.
I mean I know why, but the antipathy underlying the article undermines an otherwise interesting point.
Because the author can't help himself. Obviously. These guys always let their convictions screech out.
The opening statement makes it sound like it's only the wealthy "tech-bros" that are rubbed the wrong way by DEI.
(in my recollection of it, the wealthy techbros were the first ones on the uptake of the whole DEI swindle. It's just that it's not the direction the wind blows these days)
As a close watcher of Canadian politics, here's the best summary I can offer for those not familiar:
Overal Picture
Canada has seen gdp-per-capita decline for nearly every quarter over the past 3 years. Large stimulus spending during the pandemic fueled the housing crisis and added massive inflation. Stimulating the economy through similarly massive increases in Non-Permanent Residents has kept GDP afloat, but come at the cost of over-burdening public institutions and housing. Contiuing either policy is not possible and deeply unpopular. Canadians now pay more taxes than any US state, have housing more expensive than New York, but with productivity below that of the poorest state and our dollar running a major discount. This while our public instutions are struggling to meet demand.
1. Recurring themes in Canadian Politics
2. Recent history of the federal liberals
3. Current issues facing the government
Recurring Themes in Canadian Politics
- Unlike the U.S. where there are multiple strong centers of politics and commerce (East Cost, West Coast, Texas), Canada political power is centered largely along the St. Lawrence River where most of the country's population lives.
- Trends arising from this include: Quebec receiving, relative to its population, outsized benefits and influence in exchange for remaining part of the country and as result of French speaking requirements for the federal government. Quebec has nearly exited the country several times
- Canada is still largely a resource-based economy and possess an impressive amount of natural resources: oil, natural gas, largest uranium reserves in the world, more freshwater than all other countries combined, etc.
- The concentration of power in the East while most resource development happening in the West, creates a quasi-colonial between the Ontario/Quebec and the younger and resource heavy provinces, particularly the Prairies.
- Economically, Canada priviledges large incumbent businesses and most of its sectors are oligopolies. The reasoning for doing so historically has been to fend of larger, well funded US competitors.
Recent History of the federal liberals
- Liberals have historically have been centrist party, taking popular ideas from both socialist NDP (who have yet to win a federal election) and the federal Conservative party (itself a coaltion of social and fiscal conservatives created by Harper in the 90s).
- 2015 Justin Trudeau came in as the most popular Prime Minister in history with a majority government. Major legislation included legalizing weed and improvements to Child Benefits. The majority was lost in 2019 with Conservatives gaining the popular vote.
Overall Picture - In Detail
- Economic Issue #1: Lagging economy. Canada is still largely a resource based economy (see above) and business investment in that sector, and Canada overall, declined drastically starting in 2015, arguably due to increasing opportunities for resource development in the U.S. and the Canadian Federal Government stance towards non-reweables. Business investment is more a leading indicator, but still a major economic issue for Canada.
- Economic Issue #2: Increased cost of housing. Canadian housing costs in major cities has reached crisis levels even leading up to the pandemic. Our major cities like Toronto and Vancouver are some of the most unaffordable in the world. Most people who have been in Canada have seen housing in their cities go from achieveable-if-expensive (in major regions) to impossibly unaffordable. Most major cities now require 30+ of saving (at the average income) for a downpayment with a salary in the top 1% to purchase a home.
- Economic issue #3: Large inflation, combined with increased costs from consolidated markets with little competition. Not unlike other countries post-pandemic, but reports show major costs of living such as groceries have seen above-inflation levels of price increases due to industry consolidation. I.E. Many parts of Canada have one 2 major suppliers of grociers
- Immigration Issue #1: Non-permanent Residents. Canada has 2 classes of immigrants (aside from Refugees, whih make up a small number): Permanent Residents (PR's) and Non-permanent residents (NPR's). Our PR system is what is widely hailed as one of the best in the world and a point of Canadian pride. The NPR system has been substantially expanded under the Trudeau government and arguably exploited with millions of NPR's entering as temporary workers and university students. NPR's now consist of over 7% of the population (larger than then Indigenous population).
- Social Cohesion: most of Canada's public services (healthcare, teaching, even postal services, etc) have seen substantial degradation and a struggle to meet capacity.
- Lastly, it should be noted that Canada has tax system well above any US state. Historically, most Canadians have not have a problem with this because of the relative strength of our public institutions.
Current Issues facing the Goverment
- If the federal liberals have an election, they will lost most of their seats. They may even lose party status. They will likely avoid this at all costs.
- The federal NDP are not projected to lose seats, but will lose influence they gain by upholding the minority government. They gain little from a federal election.
- Given an early election is not likely and Trudeau is facing revolts internally (his key finance minister and deputy PM resigned publicly in the past few weeks), the choice is to stop parliment while they look for a new PM (trudeau may act as the interim). If they choose an existing MP for PM (maybe Freeland) they risk being associated with a deeply unpopular party. If they chose an outsider (like Mark Carney), they risk just as much backlash for an unelected PM.
Really appreciate the summary! As a Canadian these things feel very obvious but since most of this site is from the US this should help the conversation a lot.
> stimulus spending during the pandemic fueled the housing crisis
not very informed on canadian politics/economy so apologies if it is an obvious question, but what is the connection of stimulus spending and the housing crisis?
* Putting money directly in pockets tends to cause inflation in everything, but especially durable assets. Their relative worth increases compared to currency by simple supply and demand principle, because the supply of currency has increased.
* This sort of double-counts the same phenomenon, but stimulus is largely implemented via interest rate policy. When interest rates fall, people are more willing to pay higher prices for the big-ticket items that will be financed for many years (since the sticker price is offset by lower amortization costs; what people really care about is what their monthly bill will be after all the math is done).
* The pandemic itself directly motivated some demand for housing in smaller centers, as wealthy people got the idea that they could reduce their COVID risk by living somewhere less densely populated. This was also seen in the US e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/style/rich-people-fled-ne... . Even if they put up their city residences for sale at the same time, they'd have to find buyers. (Housing, as an asset, is not particularly liquid or fungible. While economists strongly agree that rent controls don't work and the way to solve the problem is to build more housing, it also needs to be housing in places where it actually helps. Which is realistically going to require major zoning reform - the simple existence of millions of square kilometers of undeveloped land isn't really relevant.)
Religion and politics have always been mixed. Prior to the founding of the U.S., religious and political identity was one and the same. Which is why heresy was often treated in civil courts as sedition.
Even when the U.S. introduced the concept of seperation of church and state, it was for the explicit purpose of promoting religion. The U.S. founders axiomatically assumed religion was necessary for morality and self-governance and believed that a free market of religions (as opposed to state religion) would lead to increased religiosity [0]. And, interestingly, it seems they were right as the countries with state churches have all seen massive religious decline while the U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world (especially when you filter out the elite class, who as secular as Europeans).
The danger is that politicians co-opt religious institutions to help legitimize their regime and bolster support. Marsh's biography of Bonhoffer describes exactly this process.
[0] George Washington's Final Address: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/farewell-address
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Nice tidbits here. I'd summarize good conversation as balancing:
(1) Creating conversations that are fun and interesting for you.
(2) Give attention to the person. Make them feel comfortable, seen, and understood.
More details:
- The better you get at creating you're own good time (and it is a skill), the more you 'energy' you have to give.
- If you feel akward, you'll make the other person uncomfortable. Being comfortable with yourself is the foundation to having a sense of presence and charisma. Even if an interaction is going poorly and its feels like your fault, it can be funny. So many sitcoms are based around comedically bad interactions.
- Focusing on giving attention and comfort to the other person helps take away the anxiety of "what are they thinking about me?". Your focused on doing something for them instead of what they think of you.
- Seeking validation is a form of trying to get something from somebody. When you seek validation, you bring an agenda to the conversation, even if unconsciously, and thats why it feels uncomfortable.
- Most people just talk to be heard, so its a real gift to give someone your genuine interest and attention.
Other tricks:
Take a guess instead of asking a question:
- "You look like your having a good day" instead of "how are you?".
- "Do you work in {field}?" instead of "what do you do?"
- "Are you from {place}"
- You're guess should be educated, something you notice about the person (remember how attention is a gift?). If you're right, you make an immediate connection. If you're wrong, the conversation has a natural place to go.
Pay attention to your body:
- Notice the sensations in your feet, hands, shoulders, etc. Don't change them, just notice them. Especially your breathe. It helps you be connected with the person in the moment instead of in your head.
(2) Be Childlike in your approach to life and relationships
(1) Honest Living
If your boring (and I don't know if you are), its probably because you stopped pursuing things that you wanted and excited you for something safe.
Boring people also mask their emotions when speaking to people to avoid rejection.
To find people you genuinely connect with, you need to express yourself fully. Honest expressions will make you more polarizing, and you will experience rejection. But the people you connect with will be much deeper because they see who you actually are.
Honest living usually means some therapy or self reflection to identify the things in your life you stopped purusing. A simple litmus test: you are in a social situation and see a person you find attractive. Do you make excuses for not talking to them or go and talk to them, openly stating your interest?
(2) Childlike
Children play until they get hurt or get in trouble. Do you approach relationships with this attitude? Is your heart open to loving other people even if it hurts and they reject you?
Canada is intentionally setup to produce oligopolies as a defense against large American companies:
"Canada was, in a lot of ways, built on monopolies — think about the Hudson’s Bay Company or Canadian Pacific Rail. Canada has always feared that if we don’t let our homegrown companies get huge, we’ll get swamped by American competitors. That’s why there’s a tension between Canadian politicians, who often say they’re pro-competition, and the law, which incentivizes consolidation."
I think this strategy work well-enough until about 20 years ago. And by well enough I mean Canadian consumers weren't in an ideal situation, but things were good enough for most Canadians. Now the oligopolies have become basically predatory, gobbling up goverment funds and market capture wherever possible.
Case in point: our Temporary Foreign Worker program (who now make up 7% of the Canadian population) have not only strained housing, healthcare, and the job market it has even been called a "breeding ground for slavery" by the U.N. [1].
> we've doubled down on mediating social interactions through economic relationships
We've doubled down on marketplaces to mediate interactions because they are rational systems. Rational systems like marketplaces, elections, and bureaucracies are the sine qua non of liberalism, which both ends of the political spectrum advocate for in their own ways. The right typically advocates more for marketplaces and corporations (i.e. market-based bureaucracies) and the left typically advocates for more government managemeant (election based bureaucracies).
Rational systems are in constrast to local cultures based on tradition, biology, and shared history. Its why there is so much homogenization in farming, music, clothing, architecture, etc.
The upside is that rational systems allow for scale, propserity, and individual liberty on an unprecedented level. On the downside, rational systems are fundamentally dehumanizing.
We mediate everything through marketplaces because we've don't have any place for non-rational organizing principles (locality, biology, shared history, etc)
As far as I understand Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach - self-referential recursive structures (strange loops) are the foundation of consciousness (among other interesting things). I've been watching to see if LLM's becoming self-referential actually improves them as opposed to degrades them.
Whatever the reasons, benefits, and challenges of population decline, the amount of disdain for human life these kind of articles bring out of people is astonishing. Sustainable growth is important - but why desire less life instead of more sustainable life? And the desire to see less human lives its little more thinly disguised resentment.
If you cannot see the value and beauty in life, that is a personal failure on your own part. And you failed because you chose not to look beyond suffering to see what is beautiful and worthwhile. You've failed to strive beyond your hardships to see meaning and beauty in your own life, so you've become resentful at life itself.
Life is beautiful, but that beauty is diminished by suffering. If not, we should all strive to have as many children as possible while keeping them barely alive. I believe most people would view this as abhorrent.
With that mindset, infinite growth is similarly (if not more) disdainful of human life. It should be obvious that population cannot grow unbounded; at some point growth will lead to austerity. You highlight sustainable growth, implicitly assuming the Earth can continue supporting more people. Understand that many do not hold this view.
Do you think that statement implies that human life is valueless or that people currently living should die? I don't. Simply having fewer children or (ideally) using less resources per capita accomplishes that goal just fine.
"Disdain for human life" doesn't equate to "people should die" (although I do think "there should be less people" is what some might call a dog whistle for many). Saying "there should be less people" unequivocally expresses disdain for human life, not necessarily hatred but often enough it does.
If you want to really feel disdain for human life, try living with a disability in a country without universal healthcare. Does tend to make one a bit resentful.
I mean I know why, but the antipathy underlying the article undermines an otherwise interesting point.
reply