Bile, Blame & Barren Islands

What do we do with ex-Prime Ministers, you ask?

There's an easy solution to this:

Exile them all to a barren, isolated island.

According to CBC News' "What to do with ex-PMs and all that pent-up bile?", Canada's ex-prime ministers have become grumpy and overflowing with blame for everyone, but themselves. It's like a political game of Survivor. Those that play the game best, and win the hearts of Canadians, get to stay in power. Those who don't play fairly are voted out, but instead of being kicked off of an island, their punishment would involve being marooned on a remote island far away from content citizens. This way, they can take out all their aggression on their fellow ex-PMs. Such drama and gossip, for example Mulroney's blame on Trudeau for his "refusal, as a young man, to fight in World War II, and this while Jews were being exterminated", would be avoided. Really, why are they even grumpy in the first place? If they did their job to the best of their ability, they shouldn't be upset...although I guess if most of a country didn't like you, then it would be a bit of a blow to the ego. I think the real reason that they are so bitter about their ending of term is that they realized they didn't do what they promised the country and the citizens have called them on it. If they were at all human, then of course they'd feel crappy and probably lash out in uncontrolled anger. My proposed solution would help control their emotions and prevent them from lashing out on a national level. I suppose if they behave themselves for awhile, then they could be slowly re-introduced to society.

Also, for a small fee (per target)...exceptionally angry citizens could fly over the island and flail pies at any ex-Prime Minister(s) that they choose.

Love, Sex and Robots

Sex and romance with a robot? A little weird I think.
Upon reading, MSNBC's "Sex and marriage with robots? It could happen", my first thoughts were those of Transformers and "You have to be DESPERATE!".

Marriage to a machine...do I need to say more? Beastiality, necrophilia et cetera are all considered socially unacceptable, so why do we assume it would be acceptable with a robot?
Personally, if I was with someone and they left me for a robot or decided to add a robot into their life, I would be flat-out insulted. I think many people would be doubting their self-worth (something robots cannot do!). Not to mention the impact someone would feel in knowing that they have to have a machine programmed to "love" them instead of finding their own true love.
Robots of the future may be able to be programmed with amazing talents, but can they really replace the passion and true romance between people? Can they think and react to what one partner does and adjust accordingly? No (not entirely). Humans are simply too complex to mimic.
And to love...in order to love, one must feel it, but can a robot possess the capability of feeling? How would it feel to have something say "I love you", but not understand the feeling of love? How about the element of surprise and spontaneity? If we are the ones programming them, how could there possibly be unexpectedness in your relationship? Furthermore, you are essentially thinking for two bodies as you are the brain supplying the robot with actions and "thoughts". You have complete control of this object and no sacrifices to be made in the relationship. Without sacrifice, you can't gain pleasure and have a tendency to take everything for granted. Personally, you need to have faults to have character and arguments over these is healthy! Its a big part of what a relationship is...having, accepting and dealing with human faults.
I don't think robots can replace humans, maybe superficially, but on a deeper level, no.

In terms of feelings, robots can be programmed to get angry, maybe this is archaic Jetson-like thinking, but what happens when the emotion malfunctions and gets out of control? Maybe these thoughts have more to do with culture than anything, as some countries such as Japan are much more accepting of these ideas and technology than many Western societies. Or opposite of out-of-control, what happens when they just fail to work? I'd say an incident like this would terminate a marriage when one partner fails to function at all.

And if robots can't replace humans 100%, what makes one think that they could be a suitable replacement for pedophiles or any other sex criminals? In the article, it was suggested that these human-like robots could be substitutes for the real thing (ie. give a pedophile a child-like robot to discourage them from attacking real humans). But if something is missing to make them truly human, then sex criminals may also note the difference and feel that these are not adequate substitutes. Essentially, the role of the robot would be useless if attackers continue to go after their human prey.
This can also lead to another point the article brought up (which I've already slightly mentioned) about robots and ethics. Is sex with robots ethical? Socially acceptable? What about using robots for acts that are considered sex crimes when done with humans? It is quite the ethical dilemma. One that's answer is not clear or easily decided.

There are many unanswerable questions, and I suppose the only way to answer them is to wait and see where technology takes us and how society accepts or rejects it.

On a side note, as unsuitable for love and marriage as I think robots are, they are still rather amazing technological creations.

A Failed Referendum

Reading Voters Roundly Reject MMP from the Globe and Mail clarified my views of the recent Ontario referendum.

Clearly, the title is a good indication of my opinion. The fact that it did not go through was a failure for Ontario.

Now why was it a failure?

How about lack of advertising for one thing...Here's an advertisement about the MMP system, which I know I definitely never saw before the election, nor did I see or hear any other advertisements.

Personally, I had no idea what the referendum was about. I had only heard rumours about there being one, until I asked my friend Andrian (a Masters student in political science) what was going on.

Another issue I have heard many people discussing is that people are afraid of the extra expense of having more seats.

+

=

In relation to other expenses that have been made by the government, this is peanuts. As well, what about all the money that was wasted away with things like Paul Martin's Sponsorship scandal?

I vote to give money for more seats. An MMP truly exercises democracy with the government actually reflecting what the people voted.

Look at how well MMP's are working in places like New Zealand, Germany, the UK et cetera. One important point is that yes, it did take New Zealand two referendum votes before the idea was implemented. So there is hope for Ontario. Maybe for the next referendum, society will be more informed and able to make better choices based on their increased knowledge of the topic at hand.

I believe MMP representation is a logical and fair way for the government to be elected and run.

To Marry or Not To Marry...

On CBC News there was a video discussion entitled "Whither Marriage" about the declining rates of marriage in Canada and who is to blame for the changing demographic. Barbara Kay was one of the members of the discussion and all I have to say is: Who does she think she is to blame single women for the demographic changes in Canada?! If she's a mother, like she claims to be, then she helped raise the "new generation" of women who aren't marrying and procreating at the age of 20. She [Barbara Kay] said it herself! Her daughter is middle-aged and trying to have children - deflecting the blame from herself for raising her child to want to enjoy life before "settling down"? I think so!

So why is there a sudden change in demographics? Who encouraged women to be independent and take time for themselves before (potentially) settling down and raising a family? I'd say its the same generation that Barbara is from and that are now realizing their so-called 'mistake' and trying to dig themselves out of the 'problem' that they created. Her ideas are archaic and very much old-fashioned. They are no longer the social norm for many reasons. Times are changing, and with that, the roles of women are rapidly evolving from the idea that women's only job is to be in the kitchen and raise a family. Although there is no title of "Family Woman" yet (because women are still associated with being primary caregivers), like there is a "Family Man", many women are choosing not to stay at home, but to continue with their careers and are changing society's ideas regarding gender roles.

Another possible reason for women having families later in life is not that they are being selfish and out partying through their 20's, but to get an adequate education, it takes much longer than it used to with many women choosing to gain a higher education. And a better education means a better chance of supporting oneself.

In her argument, Ms. Kay pointed out that Canada's demographics are changing. In Canada, yes, there are fewer marriages, but we still have common-law relationships, homosexual unions, and yes...children from unwed families. Maybe, Barbara Kay has forgotten - but you don't need to be married to reproduce. Although these relations are not categorized as "Marriage", they still add to our population. As well, our demographics are not suffering...our population is in no danger of 'dying out'. We simply maintain our population through immigration. And what is wrong with that? Nothing. To many people, Canada is an 'escape' - away from possible war, civil unrest, unemployment, persecution or other poor social conditions. I am proud to think that we are helping people from other countries, rather than adding to the major problem of overpopulation in the world. On the flip side, I do understand that we have what is known as an "Aging Population", but what are we going to do? Confine women to kitchens, make laws forcing women to procreate? This is a woman's personal choice - encourage women, but don't blame them and guilt them into having children.

It was stated that women who choose not to marry and have children are selfish. One question I'd like to ask her is when she was 20, was she really thinking about having children to "save the world"? I don't think so. I also don't think she thought that making sacrifices was "happiness".

I give kudos to those women who stay strong to themselves and live their lives the way they want to. Isn't that what women have been fighting for for years? To be free of oppression and gender stereotypes? Are we really willing to go back to being oppressed after all these years of fighting for choice and independence?

Her last point, that women should be supported financially by men...honestly, I don't even know where to begin with that comment.

Of course, my view is not completly unbiased as I consider myself independent and strong-willed (although not single at the moment - I am not even close to considering marriage) and belong to this generation of women. Maybe it is selfish to want a career, and to travel and enjoy life, but I'm not going to enslave myself to an unfit marriage to change the demographics of Canada and add to an already overpopulated world.

Instead of blaming single/childless women, promote choice and the ability to have a healthy balance between children, family, careers and education (et cetera).