Without food sovereignty or at least multiple external sources of supply, we don’t have real sovereignty. While I may or may not support supply management, I don’t support any arrangement which could permit the USA to gradually undermine the Canadian industry and eventually become the dominant supplier of a key source of Canadian nutrition.
We now know that if we allow other countries to have undue leverage over us, they will eventually use it against us. Have to think long term here. What kind of Canada will my grandchildren inherit?
> eventually become the dominant supplier of a key source of Canadian nutrition.
Isn't that already the practical reality when the USA has unfettered access to sell the food the animals eat in Canada? Having control over the milk supply doesn't offer much when you don't have any live cows in which to produce it with. I remember what Canadian dairy farms did during the US corn subsidy heyday (hint: they happily bought the corn that sold for less than it cost to produce). Canada is only fortunate that the US backed off on those subsidies a decade or so ago, but that could very easily reverse again, especially if there ever became motive to sink another country.
> We now know that if we allow other countries to have undue leverage over us, they will eventually use it against us.
Doesn't that make dairy an especially poor food to weather conflict as it is, generally, quite hard to keep from spoiling? Your case might be stronger if we were talking about wheat or something like that which can sit idly in bins for long periods of time, but there is no such protections on it or anything else other than poultry and eggs which are also hard to maintain.
Stand-alone bottom-up observations (even if valid) obscure the fundamental problem that AI (or "AI" if you like) is inducing systemic change across human civilization.
If cohorts are graduating into the workforce with decreasing stand-alone skills, that implies the economic value-add of labour is shifting to AI, which implies broadly falling standards of living, falling political power, and an ongoing transfer of power and wealth to capital.
If students are taking shortcuts with AI when their brains have the highest capacity for learning they may be permanently weakening their prospects. It doesn't seem likely that whatever "AI management skills" they incidentally learn will make up for, over their lifetime, the economic value loss they suffer due to reduced cognitive skills.
On an individual basis, in the next few years, this might not matter. Across decades, economies and polities, it will.
> Stand-alone bottom-up observations (even if valid) obscure the fundamental problem that AI (or "AI" if you like) is inducing systemic change across human civilization.
Students have been cheating and taking shortcuts on their work long before the current generation of AI tools existed (and probably for as long as graded exams have existed).
When you lower the barrier to taking the shortcut, you get more people to take it who wouldn’t otherwise have done so. If cheating becomes incredibly easy, lots of students who would have otherwise been honest take the easy way out. Moral conviction gets harder to keep as doing the right thing becomes less rational.
Doing the right thing never becomes less rational. It may suck compared to the temptation towards the alternative, but part of growing up and being responsible is realizing there is a reason the shortcut isn't supposed to be normalized.
And civilizations do fall. The bronze age civilizations did collapse. There was something dark about the dark ages. There is no law of nature which says that things will be okay, and plenty of examples where things have fallen apart.
Just to add to this, if AI is as epochal a change as its boosters say (and I am open to that argument), then surely it must have the potential for awful consequences, in proportion to its potential for good.
The concept “understand” is rooted in utility. It means “I have built a much simpler model which produces usefully accurate predictions, of the thing or behaviour I seek to ‘understand’”. This utility is “explanatory power”. The model may be in your head, may be math, may be an algorithm or narrative, it may be a methodology with a history of utility. “Greater understanding” is associated with models that are simpler, more essential, more accurate, more useful, cheaper, more decomposed, more composable, more easily communicated or replicated, or more widely applicable.
“Pattern matching”, “next token prediction”, “tensor math” and “gradient descent” or the understanding and application of these by specialists, are not useful models of what LLMs do, any more than “have sex, feed and talk to the resulting artifact for 18 years” is a useful model of human physiology or psychology.
My understanding, and I'm not a specialist, is there are huge and consequential utility gaps in our models of LLMs. So much so, it is reasonable to say we don't yet understand how they work.
I am going to try to tackle this from the positive side, but there's a lot that could be said, and I'm not sure I will be successful.
There's no doubt that inherent physical attractiveness, extroversion, confidence and charisma, winning the genetic lottery, creates huge advantages. I've seen it in action, seen it open doors that will never open for an asymmetric, scrawny, socially erratic, introvert nerd with a high-pitched voice like myself. Seen how it affords choices and outcomes I will never have, no matter what I do.
Like so much of life, it is patently unjust and painful.
But it turns out there are enough other doors to open and ways of opening them, that me and all my similarly hopeless friends, got laid, got long-term partners and went on to experience the same relationship joys and failure modes as the beautiful people.
I wish I could warn my young self I'd be the comic relief in the mainstream mating game, but that it's OK, that I should try it, study it, realize and grieve my inadequacy, just get over it, get comfortable with who I am and what's achievable for me, and then go and play a slower, deeper game in a smaller, more congenial league.
What works? Sure, do the self-improvement stuff. Get fit, get a purpose. Find and live by your values. Practice fearlessness and not giving a crap what others think and leverage that into charisma (which is really hard but doable and I'm still working on it).
Find your tribe or social ecosystem and learn to love it (I had contempt for nerds that I had to get past. It was internalized shame at being mainstream-inadequate and it held me back for decades.) Explore adjacent social ecosystems. Get out there. Engage. Do not care about winning any specific outcome.
Have faith that it gets better, almost certainly, in most cases.
Most important, and in accordance with your values and self-respect, work hard to make ongoing net-positive social contributions (all kinds will work, interpersonal, social, material, intellectual, ethical, time, effort) with no strings attached. Use your strengths and interests.
I know this works. I am a weird intense socially-incompetent pedantic misanthrope, but I make the effort to spare my friends the downsides and I deliberately contribute positives. For example, I lead with my values in word and deed. They aren't a matter of consensus and I am contrary to my friends often enough. My super power is that I am entirely comfortable around opposing values. I will not conform to other people's and I don't care, on a personal level, if they adopt mine. Oddly, that combination results in a lot of approval and status. (I didn't plan this, it's a byproduct of my misanthropy, I figured it out after the fact, and realized I was on to a good thing.)
Sometimes at gatherings I can tell that I've just gone off the range, and I can see the look of friendly acceptance. “He's a freak, but he's our freak.” That group judgement of me reflects well and raises my social status considerably. I know my wife is proud of the social respect I've earned, even if the means are a mystery to her. It means nothing at all to some of the ladies, but it does to her.
This is just one example of how a skinny inconsequential nerd can project dominance without cash outlays, big muscles or a strong jawline. And there are so many other ways to be a social contributor or leader. Which equals reproductive fitness!
You, and every other “ugly person” out there has strengths. Find them. Develop them. Use them. Get over the fact that you can't succeed in mainstream competition. Just let it go. Look around, explore, and play in arenas you can win.
Remember (paraphrased) “behind every high-status female is a high-status male who is sick of her shit.” There's no particular advantage in winning one, and there are likely serious downsides. (And before y'all get mad at me the reverse is obviously true too. Married with kids, you know. And I can't speak to the generalization across gender permutations.)
I'm aware that online dating is a problem, and maybe there's a big problem in unrealistic expectations. Going to absolutely support the advice that you get your head out of that world. Play in the real world like it's 1970, 1980, 1990, whatever works for you. I have direct knowledge there are women doing the same. Society will figure it out in the long term and you will be ahead of the curve.
This is all good advice. Confidence isn't only "Gigachad" energy. Just being comfortable with yourself and accepting whatever you are displays confidence. Constantly looking down at yourself and whatever problems you have is not in any way productive. No one will ever be attracted to a guy prattling on about facial features ratios or other Incel cult bullshit. Not even attracted, no one wants to listen to that because it's just cult programming promulgated by people using your feelings of inadequacy to sell you or sell you something.
Very few people look like Sloth from Goonies, someone you can easily describe as a goblin in terms of looks. Being overweight, scrawny, or having some unflattering features does not make anyone a goblin by any sane definition.
The Incel cult bullshit reduces human being down to genetic robots that can't think or choose for themselves. It also requires you to ignore the world around you where ugly/fat/whatever people all over are in loving relationships. No one is automatically behaving because genes favor something. Normal actual humans have free will and make their own choices.
Many plants have evolved the production of capsicum because mammals have a sensitivity to the chemical. In the wild mammals will avoid capsicum bearing plants. As a mammal capsicum causes me pain. Despite my genetic programming I love many spicy foods and willingly prepare and eat them regularly. The Incel cult bullshit would have you believe because I have a genetic predisposition towards avoiding discomfort and a susceptibility to the pain causing effects of capsicum I would never eat so much as a bell pepper ever.
Everyone has physical imperfections. Every attractive person you ever see takes a shit eventually. They get acne. They have body odor. They get ingrown toenails and sweat. Some attractive people have awful personalities or are just personally insufferable. Some are dumb as a bag of hammers. Others are psychotic or just assholes to the core. Many good looking people only look so good at certain ages and change significantly over time. Physically good looks are far far from the only measure of the quality of a person or their overall personal attractiveness.
There are vanishing few genius super model warrior poets in the world. There is zero utility in looking down on yourself for not being one of them. It's also ridiculous to assume everyone else in the world is holding out for those super rare specimens. It's also problematic when your primary concern for a romantic partner is physical attractiveness. There's way more important things than physical attractiveness when it comes to romantic relationships.
Small caps is a typographic technique to balance the appearance of strings of capitals in predominantly lowercase running text. The Economist is applying their style guide. I checked. It's not a subtle dis.
ADHD is real, it deeply damages people's lives and it is usually treatable with stimulants, with an unusual degree of effectiveness. My psychiatrist told me up front that his diagnostic process was not directed towards ADHD and that he might end up with some other diagnosis or none at all. In the end he diagnosed me with ADHD after a process of interviews, tests, evaluation of historical evidence, and submissions by my family regarding my life and behaviour. I have a fat file of the documentation involved.
You are talking about greedy irresponsible doctors and bad faith "patients".
Stimulant's are effective at improving mood and productivity. There is no question there. I'm highly skeptical of a "disease" or "disorder". Having worked in investment banks where the majority of people were on adhd meds, college where most students were on adhd meds, and seeing all these mid-life diagnoses - is troubling, esp. when prescribing these drugs to children. Its becoming normalized, and even celebrated. Sitting in a classroom for hours everyday, glued to your seat, demanded to shut up and pay attention, is not an ideal environment for kids. If you deviate from that, you could be a candidate for adhd. Once you start these drugs, its difficult to stop and you develop a dependence. I took them for years in my youth and deeply regret it, because it was simply a bandage for addressing areas of self improvement that I ignored. I wish I had someone around back then to play devils advocate.
My revelation came when I observed my oldest child in kindergarten (which was nothing like being glued to a seat). My child was the large and obvious behavioural outlier. Then the unbelievable process in grade 3 of coaching their attention to and completion of simple homework, with much emotional distress and sobbing and feelings of inadequacy. Same with participation in sports. There is no such thing as “an ideal environment” where my kids would function in some kind of parity with their peers.
You have no clue because you have no pertinent experience.
You have to look out for your own kid and do what's best, not my place to speak, but I think we can agree on different approaches to these problems. Not all have to be involved with diagnosis or medicine.
I shared these articles in another comment, but this is what I fear is taking over the 'mental health' diagnosis situation atm:
I will agree that you are conflating and grossly oversimplifying a number of related but different issues. As a result your conclusions are just not valid.
Does the educational system make age-inappropriate almost inhumane demands on children? Yes. Do many kids have attentional and behavioural issues that are not ADHD? Yes. That can be improved without medication? Yes. Should these be distinguished from true AHDH and treated differently? Yes. Should kids with ADHD try non-medical interventions first? Yes. Should kids who have clear diagnostic markers for ADHD and who respond well to stimulants be prescribed stimulants? Hell yes. Should psychiatrists try to weed out non-ADHD people looking for legal sources of speed? Hell yes. Are the fields of psychopathology and psychotherapy problematic? Somewhat. Are they "right"? Not exactly, no. Are they "wrong"? Not exactly, no. Do they relieve suffering? Sometimes, Do they create unintended consequences? Yes, more often than we'd like. Is the whole field conducted in bad faith? No! Is it a work in progress? Yes. Are there bad faith practitioners? Yes. Are there incompetent practitioners? Yes. Are there competent practitioners acting in good faith? Absolutely yes. Are there reliable signals to tell these apart? No, unfortunately, no. Is there an epidemic of performance-enhancing prescription drug abuse in the circles in which you run? Apparently so, and I've heard this elsewhere. Is there performance-enhancing prescription drug abuse in the circles in which I run? Not to my knowledge.
Life is complicated. You do no good by mashing all this stuff together and disposing of it with simplistic conclusions.
> I'm highly skeptical of a "disease" or "disorder".
Well, it’s you versus the entire medical community. Who do you think is more likely yo be right?
Your bad experience is unfortunate but does not reflect that of most people with ADHD. It’s the only disorder which responds incredibly well to treatment by stimulants, and you’ll find that fact proven out by medical science.
Psychology/psychiatry has a dark past and seems to change its mind on things very often (often because of political correctness). Borderline a pseudoscience.
Until there's a blood test or concrete psychological proof, its just simply not a disease. These articles were great reads on this phenomenon of self diagnosis:
My claims are from a position of experience - myself, seeing friends/family all diagnosed with disorders out of nowhere, seemingly around the same time. Seeing colleagues and peers suddenly "neurodivergent". Looking for temporary solutions to permanent problems in the form of a pill. Using these substances to lose weight, get ahead at work, study, clean their homes, become more social/personable, etc. I digress, adults can calculate the risks for themselves.
If you take a peek at those articles, you'll notice that there's a big trend in people (usually young adults/teens) self diagnosing on the internet, whether its joining a forum/reddit/discord, then going to a doctor, saying, "I HAVE X" and more often than not, they get what they want. This takes away a good chunk of credibility of the 'medical community'. You can even get "diagnosed" via telehealth services now. No need to go into an office! How many people are they turning away? Hmm.
Everyone is different, and it's unfortunate that your friend's experience is not good, and that you don't know anyone with a healthy relationship with their medication.
The truth is that lots of people manage their stimulants just fine. Across everyone I know on stimulants, 8 friends and family, none are as you describe. These are people I physically see on a regular basis. No one is addicted, high, unable to function or experiencing material personality changes. Every single one of them is taking low to moderate doses, as needed, and says their stimulants changed their life for the better, allowing them to function "normally" at work or school.
After first diagnosis, under the care of a psychiatrist, I went though a typical escalation over a couple years to reach 80 mg Vyvanse + 15 mg of Dexedrine per day. 50 + 10 at ~5AM and 30 + 5 at ~noon. That's about 40 mg of dextroamphetamine per day. I enjoyed the euphoria but never experienced dependence except in the sense that I became attached to functioning like my neurotypical colleagues. My psychiatrist's professional opinion was that some people required fairly high doses and the therapeutic benefit at those doses would stabilize long-term. I will note that he was reasonably diligent in ongoing blood tests and monitoring my health, etc.
A combination of factors made me decide to stop taking Vyvanse: a probably unrelated health issue, 40 mg of dextroamphetamine per day gave me unpleasant physical side effects, and my realization that 5 years of medication had profoundly hanged my habits and self-concept. I decided to see if I could go off meds and sustain the benefits. So I tapered off (no dependence!) and for 6 years I relied on habits, strategies, exercise, nutrition, healthy sleep and meditation.
But I am now taking Vyvanse again and there is no doubt in my mind now that no amount healthy living can do what Vyvanse does.
My current dosing: on a day to day basis, I take 0, 15, 30 or 45 mg of Vyvanse depending on what I need to get done, my energy level, and my habituation. I drink coffee with it because I find that caffeine helps me keep the Vyvanse dose lower. I organize my life to maximize the value of my medicated time. I experience a clear step function in executive functioning between "slightly too little" and "enough" Vyvanse and I can feel the gears shift in my head, takes about 5 seconds, as the drug concentration in my body crosses the threshold. I move the dose up and down in 15 mg steps and when reducing my dose I spend 2-3 days at each level to avoid crashing. I take Vyvanse holidays two to six weeks long, two or three times a year to reset my habituation and fix any sleep deficit. After a holiday I get the full therapeutic effect from 15 mg. My goal is to generate enough high-quality executive function hours to fulfil my responsibilities, but keep my dose as low as possible. It seems to be working so far.
We now know that if we allow other countries to have undue leverage over us, they will eventually use it against us. Have to think long term here. What kind of Canada will my grandchildren inherit?