Philip Jong

In June 2024, the Government of Ontario abruptly announced the permanent closure of the Ontario Science Centre at its current location in the city of Toronto (where I live). The news followed plans made by the provincial government in April 2023 to relocate the center to Ontario Place, presently closed in part for redevelopment, to be reopened in 2028 as part of the city’s waterfront revitalization. Originally named the Centennial Museum of Science and Technology, the center was initially set to open in 1967 during the Canadian Centennial celebration. However, construction of the center was delayed such that it was not until September 1969 when the center was finally open to the public. Unlike most other science museums of the time, the center chose a predominantly interactive approach to science education by utilizing a combination of hands-on exhibits and live demonstrations to engage visitors about science. Aside from the many permanent displays and galleries (the planetarium being the most recognizable), the center had also featured a number of traveling exhibits since its opening which frequently explored the role of science in arts and popular culture. Unfortunately, despite undergoing significant capital renovation between 2001 and 2007, the center gradually fell into a state of disrepair due to continual structural decay in both the main facilities and the surrounding structures. The decision by the government to now close the center was based on an engineering survey of the center’s roof revealing that some sections of the roof were structurally compromised and were thus at high risk of collapse from accumulating snow during winter. The unexpected closure of the Ontario Science Centre was met with public outcry. Opponents of the closure claimed that the decision was politically motivated. Proponents of the closure, on the other hand, argued that it would be a waste of public funds to repair a facility already destined to be relocated. I have many fond memories of visiting the Ontario Science Centre both as a child and as an adult. Regardless of the center’s future, it is tragic that the center did not receive a proper farewell from the public which it so well deserved.

In June 2022, Canada experienced the highest inflation rate recorded in almost four decades. The pervasive inflation has resulted in higher prices of almost all consumer goods and services including food, gas, and rental. It mirrored the inflation surge also observed in many other countries around the world since last year. Economists theorized that the current inflation was caused by a combination of global supply shortages secondary to manufacturing slowdowns during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, volatility in the international energy (particularly oil) market, geopolitical instability from war in Eastern Europe, and even a paradoxical consumer demand increase as the world emerges from a protracted period of economic downturn and high unemployment due to the pandemic. So far, counter-inflationary monetary policies taken by the Government of Canada have not been sufficient to ease the varying economic pressures that are driving up the inflation rate. Not surprisingly, low-income, underprivileged, and marginalized populations have been impacted the greatest by the current inflation. As a Canadian, I am shocked by the rise in the cost of living over the past months which I have not witnessed before in my adult life. Aggressive economic measures are needed immediately to quell the perfect storm that is now fueling the inflation crisis in Canada.

Minimalism as a lifestyle choice has gained traction as both a cultural and a social movement in recent years. In its most simplistic practice, it is a form of simple living that deemphasizes materialistic possession and promotes self-sufficiency. It is inaccurate to conflate minimalism with the mere act of decluttering of one’s belongings or reducing one’s consumption of consumer goods. Rather, minimalism encompasses an underlying philosophy to simplify living and not just reflects a set of rules to achieve such means. In fact, elements of minimalism are rooted in many religious teachings that aspire oneself to live in virtue and to embrace only the bare necessities of life. Further, Greek philosopher Epicurus believed that the true pleasure of life could only be attained by living modestly and limiting extravagant desires in order to achieve a state of equanimity. On the other hand, more contemporary origin of minimalism may be a countercultural reaction to the rise of the conspicuous consumption and the conspicuous leisure, coined by American economist Thorstein Veblen, over the last century that are now the hallmarks of modern consumerism. As someone who prefers a simple lifestyle, I value minimalism in freeing me from the obsession of materialism so that I may better focus on pursuing a more fulfilled and meaningful life.

All of us, without exception (dare I say it), have engaged in some embarrassing acts which can be described as “stupid” in hindsight. Nowadays, with the popularity of social media, there is no shortage of examples of such acts on display by inept individuals who are quick to be ridiculed in public for their mischief. Yet, the psychological bases driving these individuals to commit stupid acts are poorly understood. In 1976, economic historian Carlo Maria Cipolla proposed the “basic laws of human stupidity”, in which an individual is considered to be acting stupid if the resultant action by the individual causes harm to others while deriving no personal gain or, worse yet, causing harm to oneself in the process. Stupidity, therefore, does not mean a lack of intelligence, for intelligent individuals can still perpetrate acts that may be stupid (alas, I am among the guilty party). Likewise, stupidity differs from ignorance, since individuals who act stupidly do so willfully despite being aware of the negative consequences of their actions. Rather, the act of stupidity is best described as a maladaptive behavior in extremis, adopted by an individual in reaction to a circumstance to which a well-defined response dictated by social norms already exists. Most recently, researchers from Eotvos Lorand University in Hungary and Baylor University in the US used standard psychometric techniques to define the dimensions of so-called unintelligent behavior. They found that stupid acts are those engaged by perpetrators in which there is a disconnect between confidence and competence, a lack of self-control, or a tendency toward absentmindedness. Importantly, the degree of stupidity is directly proportional to the assumed responsibility of the perpetrators and the severity of the consequences resulted from their failure. Regardless of the scientific explanation behind stupidity, it is almost always better to think twice before acting so that we do not find ourselves rationalizing our stupid actions with equally stupid reasons.

In recent months, several notable public figures who are outspoken defenders of ethics and morality have themselves been found guilty of the very same morally corrupt behavior against which they have been preaching publicly. Though rampant nowadays in an age when anyone and everyone can proclaim to be a public moralist under false pretense, hypocrisy as a human fallacy has been practiced for as long as philosophers have debated on the ontology and epistemology of the human condition. Samuel Johnson’s condemnation of hypocrisy in The Rambler in 1750 famously characterized hypocrites as individuals who cowardly express “zeal” for certain desirable “virtues” which they neglect to practice and who falsely claim to have conquered their own “passions” without having earned their true “victory”. While the psychological roots from which behaviors of hypocrisy stem are still up for debate, modern studies in psychology have theorized hypocrisy to be rooted in errors in human judgment and decision making that lead to self-serving bias and other attributes of self-deception. Further, individuals who are in power are most prone to the fallacy of hypocrisy, as they are easily able to position themselves on moral high ground to challenge the beliefs and values of others but are simultaneously quick to protect their own moral stance from ever being judged. Worst yet, hypocrites undermine the effort of truly moral leaders to be recognized and inspire, forever sinking humanity into a proverbial state of moral low ground and corrupted ethics.

We seek, wherever possible, to be the masters of our domain. We are comforted by the knowledge that we are in control of the world around us. We feel secured with the realization that our action or inaction can exert a measurable influence on our surroundings. It matters even little how small such change may be, for we still feel satisfied simply knowing that we have some power to reshape our own reality. Yet, our emotional needs to be in control frequently blind us from the truth that we are sometimes at the beckons of others who truly have the power to control our world. Thus, any control which we perceive to have of our own lives is at best only an illusion—however comforting this illusion may be.

For example, it is known that the thermostats in many offices and hotel rooms are fakes, placed there solely for the false benefits of their occupants to manipulate so they may believe that they can adjust the heating and cooling of the building space. Likewise, the close buttons in many elevators are mere dummies, such that pressing them will not shorten the time until the doors will close. Perhaps the most pervasive implementation of these placebo switches is the pedestrian signal buttons installed in many busy city street intersections. With the emergence of centralized traffic control, most of these semi-actuated signals no longer function. Pushing the buttons (even repeatedly) will not change the speed by which the pedestrian traffic lights have been programmed to change. Even so, many unwitting pedestrians continue to push these buttons, deriving some satisfaction that somehow their small action may make a subtle difference.

Everyday, we crave for control of our small lives. When this control is not possible for real, we are quick to accept as substitute any illusion which may be proof that we are the masters of our domain.

I am appalled by the indifference shown by some individuals between cynicism and skepticism. They habitually question with a jaded negativity the integrity and professed motives of others, and they reject without due justification others’ values and opinions that are necessarily different from those of their own. Often, they mistakenly believe that they are the best judges of society’s ethical or moral standards and that their nonconformity to the established institutions serves only to reflect their superior intellect and character.

Further, these individuals are quick to defend their practice of cynicism as healthy skepticism, incorrectly believing that they are one and the same. While both may be used to question current thinking or beliefs, blanket cynicism is all but a cowardly shield that is used to try to hide the cynics’ own insecurity of the world around them of which they understand very little. For them, it is an easy escape to adopt to remain morally superior by senselessly denouncing all societal conventions. Moreover, cynicism requires no recognition of the boundary between truth and lie, fact and fiction, reasoning and ignorance. It demands little from its practitioners, who are seemingly comforted by the empty knowledge which their indifference brings.

Skeptics investigate to search out the real answers. Cynics believe in their own answers without even looking.

Much of the public’s attention in recent weeks had been captured by the tragic news of a string of “celebrity” deaths. These deaths included famed actors, artists, musicians, journalists, and even political leaders. Many of us expressed grief about their losses, though our personal connections to these individuals were often tenuous at best. We took interest in their lives because they were role models, because they offered us inspirations, or simply because they made good topics for mindless gossips. Some drew our heartfelt praises by the positive contributions they had made to societies; others were mocked relentlessly by us because of the irresponsible antics they chose to portray in public.

As the world becomes more interconnected, both technologically and spiritually, all of our lives are also becoming more intertwined. Our obsession with these “celebrity” deaths is thus a reflection of our preoccupation with our own mortality—knowing that someday our own deaths may also be judged by others, rightly or wrongly.

Beginning last month, all retailers in the city of Toronto (where I live) began charging shoppers 5 cents for each new plastic bag used in a purchase. This was in compliance to the controversial city bylaw passed late last year mandating the levy, following a last-minute compromise deal struck between the city and major supermarkets. One goal of this bylaw is to reduce the city’s plastic wastes by 70% from its landfills by 2010. Though environmentally sound, the initiative has evoked heated debate among its supporters and detractors, including many consumers who see this levy as just another “backdoor tax” imposed by the city and profit grabbing scheme conspired by the retailers.

As an avid recycler myself, I too find the effort by some retailers to deliberately profit from the newly invoked bylaw revolting, in effect passing the “buck” onto their customers who must bear the entire financial burden of this green initiative which the retailers themselves have also agreed to participate. This is because it was the retailers who originally lobbied against the city’s earlier (and more palatable) proposal to apply a 10-cent rebate, rather than a 5-cent levy, to encourage consumers to reduce plastic bag usage. Moreover, the current bylaw supported by the same lobbyists makes no mandate to collect this fee from the retailers for the city to offset its recycling and waste management cost, thus allowing the retailers to freely pocket the fee as added profits for themselves. A number of retailers even choose to up-sell their customers at a premium (thus making even more profits) reusable shopping bags that are plastered with obnoxious advertisements, turning all of their customers into walking billboards for the retailers’ brands. Indeed, this is shameful to see that the unsound business practice by a few unscrupulous retailers makes yet another mockery of an otherwise noble environmental cause put forth by a great city.

In March 2009, an outbreak of a newly discovered A/H1N1 influenza, or so-called swine flu, was first detected in Mexico. Since then, confirmed cases have been reported in many other countries, including Canada, eventually prompting the World Health Organization to elevate its pandemic alert phase to declare that widespread human infection of this influenza is now present and that a pandemic is imminent. In Canada (where I live), the news has triggered intense public worry that this outbreak may mirror the SARS outbreak which caused a public health crisis across the country in 2002-3. Haste comparison to the 1918 flu pandemic has even been made, though based often on inaccurate or incomplete scientific data (such as on the true case fatality rate) on the epidemiology of this disease. Moreover, news reports of rapid human-to-human transmission and disease susceptibility among otherwise healthy young individuals have contributed to the added panic about the flu by the public. Undoubtedly, a concerted national and international effort must be made swiftly to properly survey and implement measures to control and mitigate the spread of this flu in Canada and in other countries. In the meantime, the public must be vigilant to practice good hygiene and to reduce their risk of exposure but not be led by misinformation and unfounded fear about the disease.