Philip Jong

Last month, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking posted the question “In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?” on Yahoo! Answers. The post generated unprecedented attention from both the media and public. Earlier this month he posted a follow-up message on Yahoo! Answers to his original question.

Notwithstanding the assertion that I am in no position to compare my opinion with that of an academic and intellectual of our times, I also question the ability of humankind to survive the next millennium, given our current path of self-destructive behaviors as a civilization. The conflicts we create within our species, such as warfare and famine, as well as those we create against our habitat, such as global warming and depletion of natural resources, will only grow larger as humankind continues to expand its dominance on this planet. We blind ourselves from the long-term consequences of our actions by the short-term rewards we reap from the supposedly technological and cultural progress we achieved over time. Before we can devote ourselves to expand the human race to the reach of outer space and other stars (as Hawking claimed), we must first learn to resolve the conflicts we have already created, for otherwise our fate is sealed regardless of where the human race lives on.

Currently there is a heated debate among internet stakeholders on the merits of network or net neutrality. Although the term was only coined in 2005 by Tim Wu, the fundamentals of net neutrality actually dated back to when internet protocol was first conceived to guide data exchange across a global network. At the most basic level, net neutrality guarantees the indiscriminate delivery of information packets across the internet, regardless of their sources or destinations. Proponents of net neutrality, including many academics and Tim Berners-Lee (the father of the World Wide Web), have advocated such unrestricted access as a basic right of freedom to information. Opponents of net neutrality, such as the telecommunication industries, have argued for their right to rely on market economics to prioritize access to information on the internet. The latter is based on existing practice by common carriers, such as in cable television, where consumers are charged to pay differently depending on the level of content delivery. However, such argument ignores the fundamental differences between the internet and traditional media channel on how information reaches its consumers. As an avid consumer, my right to access such information must never be determined by economics or politics. Any challenge to this right is simply censorship, regardless of the regulatory disguise under which this censorship may hide.

Last month the unionized workers from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) staged an illegal strike, essentially shutting down the entire public transportation system in the city of Toronto, Canada. The strike shook up city traffic as many commuters were not forewarned about the TTC shutdown. The union defended its action by calling it an unethical lockout, while the management called it a wildcat strike. The Ontario Labor Relations Board immediately ruled against the union and served a cease and desist order to the workers to stop the illegal work stoppage. Toronto mayor David Miller also spoke against the union and stated that the workers’ action was in violation of our labor law. While the union clearly had many legitimate worker concerns such as occupational safety, the decision to stage an illegal strike without due process was a poor choice taken by the union—politically or otherwise. As public servants, TTC workers had a legal responsibility to the city to perform their job and to follow due process to resolve any outstanding dispute. Even though the strike ended soon within the same day when the union finally conceded, this ill-conceived action by the union had come at a great political cost—the cost of the much needed support from the public, who undoubtedly now holds a dimmer view of the union and its agenda.

Earlier this month the city of Toronto saw the opening of the Medicor Cancer Centre, a for-profit private clinic that provides cancer patients with medical services in return for a charged fee. Proponents claim that the clinic acts primarily as an advocate for cancer patients and its services rendered do not infringe the laws of the Canada Health Act. Opponents argue that the establishment of such a clinic merely creates a two-tier health care system that violates the spirit of universal healthcare in Canada. The center includes a team of medical physicians, naturopathic doctors, counselors, dieticians, physiotherapists, massage therapists, and other ancillary healthcare providers. To the clinic’s credit, while many (if not all) of these services are readily available to cancer patients free of charge via other means (such as through the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation), the convenience of one-stop “shopping” and the perceived continuity of care (including 24-hour access to a physician from the center) offered by the clinic may be appealing to cancer patients who can afford such care and who do not want to be burdened by the need to arrange similar services for themselves while battling their disease. However, the autonomy of an individual to choose private over public care must be carefully balanced by the potential abuse of these alternative care pathways that may undermine the equality and rights of all Canadians to receive appropriate and timely health care. It should also be noted that the clinic does not offer essential cancer services such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. As such, the public must be made aware that the care provided by this clinic is not meant as sole substitute for traditional medical care delivered to cancer patients by public healthcare. Regardless of the ethical dilemma that is raised, this is a clear demonstration that health and wealth are inescapably intertwined.

As with sitcoms, reality television has grown over the past decade to define its own genre. The origin of reality television owes not to shows such as Survivor or The Real World but to programs such as Candid Camera and others from the 1950s and earlier. While the definition of reality television is still in flux, most depict situations of so-called unscripted events that feature ordinary people in real life situations. It is attractive television programming for the networks that produce it, for the participants who take part in it, and for the audience who watch it. For the networks, these shows are often cheaper to produce as they command no television stars who demand big salaries. For the participants (some of whom are making a living appearing on these shows), these shows offer the thrills, the materialistic rewards, and their fifteen minutes of fame. For the audience, the motivations behind watching these shows are likely multiple. For some, it is the rush from watching competition between contestants unfolding in real time. For others, it is the buzz from cheering on the winners or the underdogs. Unfortunately, many viewers also watch these shows for the guilty pleasure of seeing participants failed, humiliated, or dejected by their peers. Misery loves company! The latter motivation is a sad reflection of the selfish human nature brought out by these television shows. We must not forget that there is really no reality in reality television. It is as artificially created and prescripted as other television genres. The only difference is that both the participants and the audience choose to be blinded from it, in exchange for a momentary escape from their real daily lives.