The Global War of Values
The Internet has rendered the “Leave It To Beaver” 1950s idea of social cohesion as road kill. Quaint? YES. Nostalgic? DEFINITELY. Symbolic of “the good life”? For many who remember it, LONGING😐
Exploring change in geotechnomics
On 2025-03-13, a paper was published under the above title authored by a project team of six federal civil servants. Their names and positions are listed in the document. At the bottom of the paper, the following “Disclaimer” appears:
Policy Horizons Canada (Policy Horizons) is the Government of Canada’s centre of excellence in foresight. Our mandate is to empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making. The content of this document does not necessarily represent the views of the Government of Canada, or participating departments and agencies.
The federal Life Lens.
As my readers know by now, the LIFE LENS concept is central to everything I publish. We all have one individually, and when we collaborate on group initiatives, we “pool” our collective perspectives to create an outcome that represents an acceptable consensus.
Public institutions are particularly concerned that any publication it makes available to the public meets their very high internal standards. Those authorities serve to strike the right a balance between what is “politically correct” while sharing information that may serve the public interest.
That said, I have perused the paper with the above thoughts in mind. A few things caught my attention:
1️⃣ DEI remains an interest.
Under 3.3 Sources of strength, which begins “Select smaller states with access to strategic natural and human resources increasingly enjoy outsized influence in the international system,” a box for “In the future” suggested that….
Fluctuations in the strategic value of resources, whether from market forces or market manipulation by influential players, may shift global power dynamics in unexpected ways
States committed to diversity, inclusion, and social welfare may be more successful in cultivating talent for human resources to support technological innovation – and in weathering the labour and social disruptions that accompany it – leading to more international influenceFootnote36
More influential small and middle powers with greater room to manoeuvre could produce new and more flexible alignments around economic, human-rights, environmental, or strategic issues
My comment
The idea of diversity, equity and inclusion would be admirable if based on merit and if human nature was inherently fair, non-discriminating, and non-tribal.
The very fact that it requires the cost and force of big, authoritarian and highly prescriptive public enforcement institutions should tell everyone thar these virtues do not come naturally to most people.
All of history is littered with tales of human survival under conditions of scarcity, insecurity and tribal aggression against others. The strong took from the weak what belonged to others, acquired through hard work, creativity, sacrifice and merit.
It’s the height of extreme hubris that governments leaders believe they can control earth’s climate by institutional means, and all DEI regulatory initiatives display the same level of egocentricity.
2️⃣ “Wicked” climate change
Under 3.2 Rules, which begins “Multilateral institutions are struggling to regulate technology”, the hubris continues in another box for “In the future” prognostications…
The accelerating pace of innovation in AI may make it even harder for international institutions to regulate potentially harmful dual-use technologies through familiar mechanisms. New international consultation and collaboration mechanisms may be needed
The separation of digital ecosystems due to different regulatory environments could harm international trade and collaboration on developing technological solutions to wicked problems such as climate change😱
Unregulated – or inconsistently regulated – technological development could amplify fear and distrust between states, increasing the likelihood of conflict, and lead to the emergence of new existential threats to humanity from uncontrolled technologies
My comment.
They can’t help themselves. Those six federal civil servants are paid handsomely to continue to bang the drum of climate change using words like “wicked” to subliminally assault the minds of Canadians to seed their beliefs that the Climate Change Crisis Theory (CCCT) is still cause for fear and anxiety. It’s their way to justify to us, and to themselves, that the $350,000,000,000+ of federal expenditures that has been “invested” in institutions to “protect us” 🤣 has been money well spent.
The CCCT has been the multi-decade excuse to build the richest federal jobs creation program in Canadian history at taxpayer expense 🥵🥶🤥
3️⃣ Federal chest-beating 🏋️♂️
There are other examples in this paper that support the authors’ belief in the need for a strong central government. There’s a tone of implied wisdom throughout the text that hints the need for federal spending on staff who write papers like this.
I don’t doubt that there are some people who might argue that this is a good use of taxpayers sacrifices. However, if given the opportunity, I would OPT OUT of remitting any of my retirement savings for this purpose. As I have expressed elsewhere, I would also OPT OUT of complying with anything to do with climate change.
My rule of thumb
If I am free to choose purchase (or not) a product or service offered to me in the free market, then why must I be forced to do so in the public sector?
Shouldn’t I be equally free to OPT OUT of any liability for a non-essential government service that has no value to me or my family?
Voting
Morning rants like this one are common. The rule of thumb (above) is my wish, not my reality, much to my dismay🥺
In the next hour, I plan to cast my vote in this federal election. I will not be, nor ever have been, given the opportunity to OPT OUT of the majority of federal oversights and constraints on my life. After 11 election efforts to change this reality as a political candidate, matters have only gotten worse.
To add injury to insult —
I applied to be the INDEPENDENT for LESS GOVERNMENT choice on the ballot, but Elections Canada kiboshed my effort on March 30.
One again, I find myself wishing for TRUE DEMOCRACY - one that is respectful of the Freedom of Informed Choice of every Canadian.
Howling at the moon.
At times I feel like the proverbial lone wolf frustrated in his efforts to fight for I life on his terms while facing an unfair regulatory world.
This paper about “geotechnomics” is just another reminder that the fight is lost — that the life lens of the typical career government worker, and they values they hold dear within it, will never align with mine or anyone else who believes in the following….