Facts:

• “Anarchists” using the black bloc tactic were hiding amongst the peaceful protestors making it difficult for the police to identify them individually [1]
• The black bloc rioters destroyed dozens of private properties and at least four police cruisers on Saturday evening [2] [3]
• The police had identified at least some of the vandals and promised to arrest them at a later time (i.e. a later protest) [4]
• The “peaceful protesters” did next to nothing to stop the “anarchists” from destroying all the property: by many accounts, those who weren’t cheering and applauding were idly standing and watching (bystander effect at work?) [5]
• The police admitted to arresting and detaining many innocent protestors, but also claimed it was a necessary evil to arresting those black bloc rioters who were blending into the crowd [6;ongoing]

The “Anarchists”

“They call themselves anarchists. I think that’s a generous opinion.” -Mayor David Miller

Most of the mass media reporters seem to agree on one thing about the black bloc anarchists: they were mostly ‘punks’ and kids who showed up for the explicit purpose of violence and vandalism. They had no particular cause, nor a particular issue, nor are they even an official ‘group’ of any constitution. These are idiots who get off on seeing chaos and destruction. They probably took Fight Club a little bit too seriously.

These are stupid, naive, and violent ‘thugs’ who don’t have enough to do with their time. For the most part, they are young societal outcasts hailing from the middle class who also happen to be misanthropes.

The “Peaceful” Protestors

So those anarchists with the black gear decided to blend into the crowds of protestors, then gradually hi-jacked the protests and started a riot. The protestors stood by and watched while the streets burned. Then they go on to complain that the police presence is too much and that we were turning into a Police State. The “Whose streets? Our Streets!” chant being used against the police seems a little self serving here when it is blatantly obvious to most residents of the city that the police were there to protect residents against the ever-present violent rioters.

Why is it that the protestors stood by and did nothing? Why is it that they kick and scream about police brutality, but make no mention of the window-smashing and cruiser-burning? This particular theory seems pretty appealing: the protestors seem to want some ruckus and fighting. It might just be useful to their cause. Then there are the conspiracy nuts who keep trying to tell us that the police were the ones who lit their car on fire.

Furthermore, it seems that many of the protestors actually knew who the people in the black were (pretty easy to spot with the big black army boots after they get rid of the clothes), and yet didn’t bother to report anything or confront anybody. They act all brave when yelling at the politicians, but somehow lose their guts when they see an anarchist? Give me a break.

For the large part, most of the protestors are not your average citizens / Toronto residents. Most of us decided to stay away from the city and the mobs of chanting people. Sure, many of them have pet issues that they care deeply about – possibly the environment, child poverty, world hunger, or wars – but the most important common thread between the groups are that the people are there for the purpose of causing a scene. That’s what protests (peaceful ones even) are for, of course.

Think of the people you know who went to the protests. Watch the news footage of the protestors. Listen to the interviews of the people on the streets. From what I gather, most of these people are the ’shit-disturbers’ of society. You know the kind – the ones who like to yell and scream and incite chants for their cause du jour; the kind of people who like to scream and yell at the most seemingly inappropriate times when you just want to, say, go to sleep, or just try to leave work for home (sadly in that particular case, some of us regular folk had to foot their legal bill)!

All this, and we still don’t really know what the protestors were arguing for. Nobody seems interested in putting out a logical argument pertaining to the matter that they are trying to push. Most are only interested in catchy chants, it seems.

The Indignant

Naturally, when some of them got arrested for refusing to listen to police instructions (a common sense and street-smart thing to do in almost all circumstances), they cried foul and started claiming abuses of civil liberties. Well, what about my civil liberties as a resident of the city who doesn’t want to listen to your protests (especially when many of you are extraordinarily ill-informed and naive)? If I recall correctly from my Law & Morality course, our constitution and most constitutions of the “free world” are based on the premise that you have fundamental rights – provided that you do not interfere with other peoples’ rights.

So excuse me if you will for having no sympathy for you lot. If you want to get real change, go shape the public policy debate by helping a political campaign or running for office. Most of the G20 leaders were democratically elected, after all. Yelling and banging and creating the justification for the multi-million dollar security bill certainly doesn’t bring me to your side of the fence.

The Cops

This brings us to the polarizing topic of the Cops. A cursory glance at the twitter feeds and the headlines from yesterday reveal that the cops were both too brutal and too reserved.

On one side, we’ve got people complaining that the cops were nowhere to be found when the rioters started smashing windows and burning cars; on the other, we’ve got people complaining that the police were too brutal when they managed to stop several potential riots involving the black bloc anarchists.

Oh sorry, I got that wrong: those are the same people complaining about both things. You can’t have it both ways!

Yes, the protestors were arrested and detained, and many of them were of the non-riot type… but as I said above – I’ve got no sympathies for those who willingly put themselves into the police ‘trap’ – how hard is it to not run into riot police? I, for one, am glad that the crazies were stopped before they could break anything else.

It is painfully obvious that the police were being provoked and baited – and while the opposite is also true, the protestors and their indignant supporters seem to get all one-sided in their account of events. Videos are even purposely cut short to show only out-of-context actions by the police. Shame on you guys for manipulating the media – thought you guys were all above that?

So there were a few bad apples amongst the police. There were also a few bad apples in the protests. Funny how things balance, no?

Get the G20 out of my city

Regardless, the only take-home message is this: why the hell were the summits hosted in the downtown core of the busiest city in the country? If they wanted resorts, Canada is full of country-side lakes and rivers. If they wanted big halls, we’ve got dozens of huge spaces in the suburbs. Heck, what about that thing, with the Nations that are United and have this internationally independent building that was built for the purpose of meetings? There doesn’t seem to be any great reason to cause a billion to be spent. (Oh, and what’s wrong with Skype?)

Maybe Stephen Harper just wanted Canada to be on the news more… at the cost of his (least) favourite Canadian city, Toronto. Payback for not voting for the Conservatives, eh?

—

One day, Plato asked Socrates, his teacher and mentor, “What is love?”

Socrates replied, “Plato, take a walk through the wheat field nearby. Without turning back, walk forward, and pick the most magnificent stalk of wheat you can find. However, you are allowed to pick only one.”

Plato followed Socrates’ instructions, confident that he would find the best stalk of wheat in the field. Before long though, he returned empty-handed. Socrates asked, “Why have you picked nothing?” Plato replied, “I had found the most magnificent stalk of wheat as soon as I walked into the field, but since I was only allowed one pick, and I could not turn back, I thought I could find a better one further ahead. However, I could not find a better one as I kept searching, so I returned with none.”

“And that is love,” said Socrates.

Some days later, Plato asked Socrates another question. “What is marriage,” he asked. Socrates answered: “Go to the woods, and as before, without turning back, bring me back the best and strongest tree in the forest. Again, you’re only allowed to choose one, so choose wisely.”

Plato walked through the woods, and returned soon after with a tree. However, the tree was not strong nor tall. Socrates asked him, “Is this the best tree in the forest?” Plato answered, “No, but I didn’t want to return empty handed like last time, and while I’m sure there are better trees in the forest, I felt I could not afford to miss the opportunity at this tree.”

“And that is marriage,” said Socrates.

On yet another day, Plato asked, “What is an affair?” Socrates answered, in his usual way, “Head to the woods, and look for the most beautiful flower. This time, you’re allowed to look wherever you want, and you can retrace your steps if you must.” Plato, given these instructions, went into the woods full of confidence. In a short time, he had found the most beautiful, most colorful blooming flower in the forest, and picked it out of the soil for his return. As he returned, however, the flower began to wilt. When he arrived, Socrates asked, “Is this the most beautiful flower in the forest?” Plato answered, “Yes, I discovered this most beautiful of flowers, but as I returned, the flower began to lose its color and beauty.”

“And that, is an affair,” said Socrates.

Now older and wiser, Plato asked Socrates once more, “What is life?” Socrates pondered for a moment, and told Plato, “As before, go to the woods, and find the most beautiful flower there is. You can go anywhere, and pick as many as you want.” Remembering all his previous experiences, Plato walked into the woods again. But after three days and three nights, he had still not returned. Socrates, with a bit of concern, went out in search of Plato. Before long, Socrates had found him, in a makeshift camp that Plato had set up. He asked Plato, “Have you found the most beautiful of flowers?” Plato pointed to a flower right next to his camp site, and said, “That is the most beautiful flower in the forest.” Socrates inquired, “Why have you not picked it yet?” Plato answered thoughtfully, “If I pick it, it would wither like the last one. But even if I don’t pick it, it will wither and die sooner or later. So while it is in full bloom, I will live beside it, admiring it from here. When it finally wilts, I will look for the next most beautiful flower.”

Socrates took this in, and said, “Now you understand the essence of life.”

“We are turning our backs on the very survival mechanism that got our species here in the first place.”

“We are air – everything we do to the air, we do directly to ourselves.”

“There is no crisis of the environment – the crisis is us.”

“Economy and ecology are from the same root word meaning home … it is time to put ‘eco’ back into economics.”

“Economists seem to think that the economy can grow forever … nothing can grow forever.”

But here was this guy, denying that climate change was man-made. That I could understand, perhaps, as he was justifying it based on solar surface activity (currently a highly debated subject as we cannot measure the sun very well, and reliable measurements from the past is virtually nonexistent). But he went on to attack several leading environmentalists of today, including Al Gore and David Suzuki. Now, I’m no fan of pure environmental rhetoric – surely, technological advancements should have an equal importance to the sustainability of the environment – after all, we only have one Earth – but I see nothing wrong with the perfectly rational arguments of these environmentalists.

He claimed that water vapour, not carbon dioxide, is the leadng cause of any greenhouse effect, and that the greenhouse effect is over-estimated in general. The case was made, essentially, that fossil fuels are not the problem, but the changing climate is in fact a natural phenomenon. But he was completely missing the point. Whether or not the burning of fossil fuels causes greenhouse warming is an important point to debate, but that ignores a great part of the system as a whole. It is obvious that fossil fuels are an unsustainable form of fuel (read Thomas Homer-Dixon’s new book), and that sooner or later, it will run out. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the world’s fuel supply is coming to an end. My own Data Management project in grade 11 was plenty enough to show the remarkable decreasing trend of oil supply. All of this data from independent sources, all pointing to the same conclusion – there is no more oil.

Climate change may very well be a consequence of our fuel-dependent economy, which is indeed my own position, but that’s only one consequence. There are far greater implications on a global economy – and essentially a human species – that is dependent on a nonrenewable resource. The fact is, it will in all likelihood lead to a disaster, if the status quo is maintained.

It wouldn’t be so bad, if this was an isolated incident. But it appears climate change deniers are rather commonplace. The “union of concerned scientists” and the “cooler heads coalition” (I may not have gotten the exact names right, but it’s along those lines) are two examples of large ’scientific’ communities denying either the man-made nature of climate change or climate change itself. These groups are coming out to the press and giving the scientific community a heck of a lot of trouble. People don’t know what to believe anymore – is the climate changing because of us, or because of something else?

But again, these advocacy groups may be completely missing the point, and misguiding the public. The facts are in, folks, the Earth is changing, and we’re running low on fuel. There is no mistake, and we’re going to have to do something about it, sooner or later. Whether it’s man-made or not should not even be a point of discussion. The fact that it’s changing for the worse should already be getting people worried. Why is it so hard to comprehend? Let’s just hope our semi-incompetent governments will stop listening to the naysayers and just get on with finding a real solution (none of this “carbon intensity” crap).

What was interesting was that the best selling pirated DVDs, of course, were not the just-released-in-theatre movies. In fact, the best sellers were usually the just-released-to-DVD movies, in pirated form. Remarkably, these DVDs sold for a not-so-low $7.

Now, it’s worth explaining to those who haven’t seen these ‘new generation’ pirated DVDs that these are essentially duplicates of the originals. If you were watching one of these pirated DVDs side-by-side with a real version of the same DVD, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Even the menus are identical and high quality. The packaging, too, is impeccable. Most of these DVDs come in cardboard sleves with a DVD case insert tucked inside, and a nicely stamped DVD that is commercial-quality. The covers come from industrial presses, with glossy print and all, not from your run-of-the-mill home inkjet printer. The only difference an average consumer would see is that there’s usually Chinese writing on it, since these are copied from the Chinese releases (usually for Hong Kong). The only thing they don’t come with is an actual plastic DVD case; instead, they come in plastic wrap, to save space.

Now, these DVDs sold like hotcakes, for a price of $7. That’s no cheap price. Compared to the pirated DVDs of old, which sold for mere change, say, $20 for 6, these are quite expensive. Which led me to wonder – what would it take for the big movie companies to lower their price to curb such piracy? Obviously, they’ve been trying to level lawsuit after lawsuit against these movie pirates – but that’s obviously not working.

I’d venture to guess that it wouldn’t take much more than a word from the big hollywood companies to lower the price of DVDs to, say, a respectable $10 CDN. Sure, it’s about half the price of the current market value of DVDs, but from a consumer’s point of view, I would pay the extra $3 to get a legitimate copy of the same DVD.

It seems to make so much sense economically. With the new, high quality DVDs the pirates are producing, the production costs can’t be that much lower than those of the legitimate ones. The only missing element, a plastic DVD case, likely don’t cost any more than 25 cents in production. Clearly, the movie pirates have seen a market for their product, and have been steadily hiking their own prices. The average consumer seems to be willing to spend a good $7 on a high quality DVD. Factor in a bit of morality and the ‘brand name factor’, big entertainment corporations should really have no problem selling tons more DVDs at $10 rather than $20. It would even cut into the piracy market, which would be the ultimate goal, right?

But, that would make too much sense, of course, succumbing to the laws of demand. There’s no way it’ll ever happen… not any time soon, anyway. What do you think?

Yesterday, amidst a rather empty convocation hall, I attended the Engineering Science overture lecture for the 2007 Winter Term, themed “Systems and States”. Giving the lecture was one Professor Thomas Homer-Dixon. The director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, and an MIT graduate, Mr. Homer-Dixon’s lecture for the day had a sobering message. By all scientific accounts, modern human civilization is heading towards collapse in many different directions. The time to act against it is now. Yes, climate change is occurring. Yes, population growth is at an unprecedented high. Yes, energy production is slowing down. There are numerous factual evidences that support these phenomena. It’s happening. Now.

—

Not too long ago, I was contemplating what I would do after high school. For me, there was almost no doubt I was going to be doing something science-related. Being practical, I chose to study engineering rather than purely theoretical science. I wanted to do something with knowledge. Learning is exhilerating, but alone, it serves no greater purpose.

Something else had always been troubling me for a while. Why aren’t the smartest people in the world making the decisions about the world?

Our world, for the large part, is run by the great democratic political machines of industrialized western nations. Yet this same political machine regularly fails at recognizing what I feel are the most important issues of today – the human impact to environment.

Now, I’ve never called myself a tree-hugger, or anything of the sort. I don’t have that sense of activism. But, I do maintain that many governments of today seem only to be concerned, with great hubris, about their own infinite ‘economic’ growth.

I am fascinated by politics. I read the newspaper regularly, just to catch up on the latest political scoop. I am fascinated, by the way politicians continue to sidestep real and important issues, with great deftness of words. Politics, to me, is nothing more than a play on words with some basic economic management.

So I figured long ago, that democracy is broken. Sure, if you ask me now, I’ll tell you that I’ll go out to vote, but for me, the impact of government is too slow, and too little. There are things going wrong with the world today, and political manuevering is not the way to solve it.

I was shocked, one day, about a year ago, to learn that there were still a great many important international figures who contest the notion of global warming, or even climate change. (Here’s a list of some: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics) It shouldn’t take so much work to convince the public. And it sure as hell shouldn’t be so hard to realize how it’s bad for the Earth.

With my faith in politics and the media shaken, I resorted to the conclusion that the only way to get things done is to do things yourself. Of course, it’s a long road, and it’s hard to see where to begin on something so monumental.

—

Professor Homer-Dixon listed the problems, and offered a great many solutions. He articulated what I had been thinking, unconsciously and in abstract. But now I see it more clearly.

As an engineer, in the 21st century, these problems will be up to us to solve. So we can avoid a catastrophe in the future (near or far). Will we be able to engineer ourselves out of this problem? Well, we can only try and see now.