Kitch

For a look at how tightly I personally hold onto 'my' ideas, take a look in the morals and religion section of this site under the thread "why god". Another dude debated me very well and I conceded that I must re-evaluate my stance on the issue as a result of one of his examples. So your thoughts on the width with which my mind is open are unfounded and evidently incorrect. How were my ideas refuted? One guy said that I made the assumption that economic growth was not sustainable. A valid point, which I replied to. All the rest of you have said is 'I hope you don't get the opportunity to discuss politics with your students...', and 'your views are self destructive since your salary will be ensured by economic growth', or something along those lines. So how have my thoughts been refuted? You haven't disproved what I've said. You've done little more than attempt to ridicule me (ad hominem... a common logical fallacy among conservatives). So, my salary will be paid by tax payers. Let's assume that you are correct in that economic growth will benefit me with either higher pay or higher probability of getting/keeping a job. Well, that economic growth will have all the other consequences that I've spoken of... reduced biodiversity (which I'm positive you don't understand the significance of, or understand the concept at all), air pollution, cultural pollution (I haven't explicitly talked about this, but it includes our consumption of manufactured desires). I'll have a job, but these things will affect my life, and EVERYONE else's (all forms of life). Thus, economic growth (as we know it... which was part of the original statement) is bad for everyone. You are going to question MY education while making such a ridiculous error? The idea that economic growth will benefit my occupation does NOT refute the idea that economic growth is (ultimately) bad for everyone. Perhaps you need to pick up a dictionary and learn what the word 'refute' actually means. You and others have DISPUTED me, but only one has attempted to refute. Your capacity for logical thinking as well as your vocabulary (and grammar... "Sure it is. You come off as so educated"... SHOULD read "Sure it has...") have failed you. Try again.

Obviously my daughter, in that situation. But there are many examples in which it is not a matter of human life or death... such as fly swatting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bleeding heart environmentalist or animal lover as I understand that it is absolutely necessary to take the lives of other living things... vegetables are just as alive as cows. That's the definition of animal, which we are; a being that derives energy from the consumption of other living things. There's no way around that (that I'm aware of). The problem comes in our (human) careless exploitation of living things. Mainly, it is the size of our population. The more people there are the less avoidable the problems we've discussed are. While a small tribe of natives 50 000 years ago may have been able to take from the Earth what they needed, this did relatively little damage because there were relatively few of them. Perhaps they weren't all that ecologically irresponsible, I don't know either way for sure. But with our desire to 'develop' we take more than we need from the Earth (I use that word "we" very loosely, since there are many humans that do not and do not contribute to/condone this practice). So, combined with our exponentially growing population, our ecological irresponsibility is harming all life on this planet. It's hard to generalize us as "stewards" though. Some of us do a great job while others only hurt the efforts. The point is that the Earth does very well on its own without need for us to protect it from anything... except for us.

Don't bother commenting on the other groups I suggested... you'll have nothing to say about them I suppose. I was referring to the natives before Europeans came... it's kind of how native tribes who haven't been disturbed by us live. They're happy.. without money. To all you other people talking trash about me being a teacher... and this M.Dancer clown, living at Bathurst and St. Clair (a pretty rich neighbourhood if I recall... indicative of your closed minded, elitist views if it is) talking about my education... well, I'll teach your kids well. They'll understand views like mine and yours and choose their own paths, whatever path that may be. And MY education, in molecular biology, has far more intrinsic value than any business degree. VERY few of you have actually tried to refute my ideas. You've only tried to poke fun and ridicule. Could it be because you CAN'T??? Or don't know how?? Give it a go!

I apologize. You are right. It's not fair for me to generalize business types as the ones possessing the characteristics that I am berating. Science (which I don't expect you to be familiar with... and I'm not criticising you for it) is all about questioning everything. Nothing is ever taken or accepted as a given. Read a scientific article (they're boring as hell though!) and you'll see how thoroughly things are explained. So, yes, I plan on encouraging this level of critical thinking. No, not all economic growth is unsustainable. However, you are making the even larger assumption that it IS sustainable. Are high tech industries sustainable? I don't know. Perhaps some other endeavours are as well. An increasing human population is not though... in any respect. The more people, the more land needed to house them, to grow food for them, and even though it is POSSIBLE that a lot of our products could eventually be made from recycled materials (I don't see that happening to the point of sustainability for a lot of products, ever) there will be more products needed because of the increased population and thus, more natural resources needed (but, again, recycling and reusing materials COULD resolve this particular flavour of exploitation of resources). The resulting reduction in biodiversity, as well as the air pollution we cause with our machines, are pretty serious problems. Since economic growth (along with our inconsiderate and ignorant view that human life is 'special') is a significant cause of these problems, it is bad for everyone. I could absolutely afford a BMW on my salary... eventually. I choose not to own one. I'll take the bus to try to help reduce air pollution.. and if I did decide to buy a car it would be hybrid or electric car (when they're made available again, or when I learn to convert a gasoline car on my own). Either way, I wouldn't buy a BMW because I could easily buy a car for a fraction of the price that serves the exact same purpose. I don't care to show off my 'wealth' since I don't include my account balance as a measure of my wealth. After all, thank you, Michael for engaging in this conversation. You seem to have actually read what I've said and debated me with legitimate arguments, even though your views are very different from mine (and pretty narrow in my opinion, no offense intended, but I'm sure it will be received). Indeed, I am from the school of thought that life would be better without a monetary compensation system... meaning, the ideal society, to me, is Marxist. However, I totally understand how unlikely such a society is... because it would never work. I also understand, though, that an entirely free market, capitalist society is just as unlikely. What are the chances that all or even most businesses won't take advantage of their power? It happens now in Canada in our mixed market! Anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to finish with here. I wanted to say thank YOU for the conversation since none of these other conservative clowns even attempted to take my words seriously. Perhaps my views are not the mainstream, but neither are yours! Most people don't even think about things that are discussed on this forum. There are many people who conservative and many who are socialist (as though those are antagonistic ideologies... or ideologies). So speaking of mainstream doesn't do you any good. Even more dangerous than my ideas (they're only dangerous to people who perceive them to threaten their ability to become stupid rich) are those who won't even allow themselves to think outside of their narrow understanding of the world. Clearly, if anyone was intelligent enough to understand what I've said on teaching, they would have seen that my REASON for teaching is to produce critically thinking citizens who are exposed to many ideas and will know how to make up their own minds with regard to their political views. AGAIN, for the third time... I'll be a SCIENCE teacher, leading to probably no opportunity to talk about politics! You conservatives can relax and go jerk off your shot guns. I'll be happy to take your tax money and raise your kids for you since you'll only limit the scope of thought their minds are capable of comprehending.

There will always be a need for teachers. Especially if people like you reproduce. Who would be so stupid to think that life could exist without money!? It's been around for the entire history of the world, right?

Wow. The most ignorant thing I think I've ever heard. Ever hear of native Indians? African bush people? There are even people who live on the streets who are very happy with their lives. I wouldn't be, but they are. None of these people have a penny. Open your mind a bit bud. Your life isn't the only way to live.

Easy there, don't get your rosary all tangled. It's not a big deal that you aren't familiar with the Dawkins book that I spoke of... I wasn't accusing you of anything because of it. Just clarifying... possibly for your, or anyone else's, interest. It had little to do with anything else we were talking about. No, believing that humans are special does not NECESSITATE bad behaviour. I didn't say that it did. What I did say was that the belief that we are special... which means that we are somehow different from other living things on Earth... leaves us with a feeling as though we have more right to live than other living things do. Take, for example, fur coats, snake skin shoes, etc. No, not everyone has or even wants these things... but what about fly swatters? We kill flies simply because they're annoying? What about all the roads you speak of, and the raccoons that get killed crossing them? Is our desire to travel more important than the lives of road kill? Sure, I sound like a crazy tree hugger... but it's all true. The belief that we're special implies that non-human life is subordinate to human life. I never spoke of anyone believing they have the 'right' to "act badly", I never even said that humans were acting badly. We're just inconsiderate and ignorant. There are many issues related to the loss of non-human lives. Mainly, the loss of biodiversity, which, to people not trained in biology might sound trivial, but it is in fact a serious problem for ALL life on Earth. My main point, again, is that the belief that we are 'special', an idea at the forefront of, at least the Christian mind (because I'm not too familiar with the others), is dangerous to the world. That being said, you bring up an excellent example in the Amish. I must concede that it refutes my idea... well, the idea that I've been speaking of. I still think that the belief that human life is 'special' is dangerous is true... but I guess it's not a ubiquitous observation. And I guess it's not truly a religious problem. Trust me, I'm with you on the imperialism and all that too.

There's two things I want to say first. One, I want to apologize for my tone in my last posting. Two, I believe you're defending religion against Dawkins because of what you know about him, not because of any of his ideas that I've presented... because I haven't presented any (that I remember). The main idea that I've provided ... 'we belong to the Earth, the Earth doesn't belong to us' is from Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael". The only Dawkin's book that I've read, so far, is "The God Delusion". Now, I'm a soon to be science teacher, so I approach things in a very scientific way. The question about whether or not god exists is not a scientific one because it is impossible to disprove (if you aren't familiar with the scientific method and care to know I'll be happy to help). In his book, Dawkins tries to show that it IS a scientific hypothesis because we can speak of it in terms of probabilities, which show that it is not a 50/50 relationship... it is actually less probable that a god exists. BUT, I haven't talked about that stuff at all... it's just there as a very short summary of what I know of Dawkins. The fact that you don't know anyone who defines 'stewardship of the Earth' as I do may speak more about the people you're acquainted with than it does about what people think. Maybe not, but it's a possibility. In truth the interpretation isn't the relevant part... it's the consequence. Which is why it's not important whether or not 'god' said anything of the sort. Your son/party analogy doesn't work. Your house is not analogous to the Earth. Your house was built and needs to be maintained while the Earth came to be the way it is millions of years before we humans came about and dominated it. Ya, I knew I got the story of Sodom wrong. I never said anything about 'the lord commanding' anyone to do anything. And your attack on Dawkins is unwarranted since I presented none of his ideas. (I assume you haven't read the "God Delusion" though... I also presume that you'd dispute it before picking it up... hence HIS distaste for religious types). The reason I brought it up wasn't to show that god is a terrible thing. Genesis was where you found support for one of your ideas... I was trying to show what a bad source of any morals or understandings of the way things are/ought to be it is. I'm not blaming your god for telling us to destroy the world... that would be a scape goat... as is your explanation that it's human tendency to destroy the world. None of the things that you've listed are 'religious entities'. This stuff won't make sense to you until you understand my main point that I'm taking from Daniel Quinn... and I don't know that I'm any good at articulating it. (I suggest you read "Ishmael" if you really want to know where this idea comes from). As I said before, the Earth existed LONG before Adam and Eve were supposed to have been around. And we humans have been around since long before then too. How did we survive before? Evidently we did. And the Earth didn't need a steward before... so why does it need one now? What makes us so special? (It is that idea that we think we're special that is dangerous, specifically). There are people on this planet now who (probably have their own forms of religion... so I guess my attacks are more aimed specifically at the 'big' ones) don't act as stewards. They take what the Earth gives them and nothing more. They don't destroy land to farm on. They don't let their populations grow to such numbers that ecosystems can't support them. They live as though they belong to the world, not the other way around. I hear the groans now... they don't have the comforts we have now. Sure, but we can have some of our comforts without destroying the livelihood of other species. What right do we have???? As for the Buddhist talk... I'M not the one who chooses to dispute its status as a religion. I don't really care. Nor do I care what anyone worships. I find it ridiculous to worship anything to tell you the truth. But that's just me!

What's telling is the reaction some people have had to that statement. Now, I admit I didn't qualify it at all, so I understand your reaction... I don't like it, particularly Mr./Mrs. Bathurst and St. Clair's (that's a pretty 'nice' neighbourhood isn't it?) but I understand it. The responsibility IS on me to explain myself if I make such a statement, but I would hope that people would try to consider something before immediately rejecting it. Also, both of your sarcasm/ridicule is VERY conservative like. I've found, in talking to business types, that I cannot drop a thought that I consider a given without being ridiculed while everything that comes out of their mouth is supposed to be a given and anyone who doesn't understand/disagrees isn't intelligent/realistic. (Not to say that anybody here has been that way since I've been here... none of you actually have, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss things without being immediately cut off). ANYHOW... Economic growth as we know it is bad for everyone. How so. Well, as I've said before, I'm no economist so I have to speak of these things in very general terms, but that does not mean that I'm wrong or too simplistic. The better our economic environment the more stuff being made, bought and sold. The more things being made, the more resources being taken from the Earth. The more resources taken from the Earth the less natural habitat for other living things. The better our economy, the more people who want to live here. This is great for us since more people means more tax revenue (true?). This also means more development (= more jobs + more required resources) on top of the natural habitat destroyed in order to make available the things we need to build things, the more habitat destroyed to build our buildings and grow food for the increasing population. Now, you might say, sure, we do all of those things, but that's only bad for animals, not us. Not true. We use carbon based fuels for our machines which may or may not be the cause of global warming but it definitely puts other pollutants in the air. We use a lot of electricity. The magnetic fields created by our km's of high voltage power lines may or may not cause cancer. Sure, both could be may nots. But what IS true is that we're causing an unnaturally high rate of extinction of living things. How does this affect us? It decreases the biodiversity in a region leading to unbalanced ecosystems which CAN have huge consequences for us... none good. Finally, by focusing on economic growth we neglect other aspects of life. Why is it that in Europe the average employee STARTS with 5 weeks holidays while we start with 2? Are we happier for it? Are we better off for it? Perhaps there are some benefits to economic growth, predominantly the rich but there are some for everyone. However, in the long run, the Earth and our culture suffers. Economic growth is bad for everyone. We just can't see it through the windshields of our BMW's (of which I don't own and never will... I'll ride the bus). I don't get your last line about my tax funded job. What does that have to do with anything? The more economic growth the more taxes to pay for me? Oh, OK. I won't get a raise based on how much money the government brings in. I might get access to tools that may help me make your kids better prepared to help with solutions to the problems you (AND ME) are causing. If I'm not funded by taxes I'll be happy to get a job in a private school. It's not the education system that I prefer but it I can help educate kids then who cares. If you're speaking generally of my implied philosophical views (very left)... or that I HATE money. Well, I don't know of a better way to have SOO many people living cooperatively (other than reducing the number of people... but how realistic/fair is that?), so I suppose at this time we need money. I honestly don't know what else to say on the matter because I don't know why you'd include that last line.

Thank god there is no god. But why? Because I have views that might hurt the ability of some people to further exploit and build fortunes that they'll never be able to spend and have no need for? Would my views 'hurt' people somehow? Economic growth as we know it is bad for everyone, ultimately. Why not consider other paradigms of life? Too simplistic huh? What is normal about invading countries to install leaders that agree with our economic goals? Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan... I'm not familiar with Canada's role there. I'm talking about the things that happened in Central America in the 80's and Vietnman in the 60's and 70's... more so the U.S. but you'll get the idea. What happened in Nicaragua? The Sandanistas were a democratically elected government (an election that had it's problems but was confirmed to be fair by ... I THINK amnesty international, or some other such group). The U.S. spread the word that they were a terrorist regime that had to be removed... hence the Contras. Those people elected a government that they wanted, but it didn't agree with U.S. economic strategy, so it had to be removed. Normal international relation? Canada was one of the largest arms suppliers in the Vietnam war... a war in which the goal was simply to stop the spread of an idea that they disagreed with, and to stunt the economic growth of a region that would have competed with the U.S. economically rather than becmoning the dependent shit hole it is now. Normal international relations? Whatever dude. The people we label as terrorists have reasons for being upset with the U.S. and whoever else they attack. You're obviously an example of what I was talking about when I said TRUE COMMUNICATION is necessary for peace. You don't KNOW that 'normal' international relations are the cause of violence. You don't KNOW that the things you speak of are 'normal'. You're regurtigating what you'll hear on the news and from conservative sources, who have their own motives for spreading such nonsense! If you want references for what I just said, well, read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. The Canada/Vietnam thing was a documentary on the discovery channel, so take it for whatever value you place on it. Don't bother any ad hominem attacks against Noam Chomsky... they don't work. That guy references EVERYTHING he says and has yet to be contradicted by ANYONE (that I'm aware of) with evidence. People only attack him because they don't like his ideas... not because he's wrong... because he's not! By the way, my goal is to teach the scientific method to my students. Not just the body of knowledge that is usually associated with it. This will (hopefully) lead to citizens with a healthy sense of open minded scepticism. This would mean that they wouldn't accept anything I said at face value. They'd evaluate it for themselves. Critical thinkers don't need to be sheltered from anything. Censorship only limits the scope of thought that people are ALLOWED to have. My ideas aren't dangerous. My teachings won't be dangerous either. Preventing anyone from hearing ANYTHING is dangerous... the truth might never be known then. I wrote this pretty fast because I'm in a hurry to get out of here. So it may sound a little bit like I'm an excentric, nut job of a teacher. Well, I'm really not... but you'll just have to trust me on that! I've just got very, I guess liberal views that I'm passionate about. Written communication seems to result in messages being received that I never intended. Whatever's clever!

I'm going to be a science teacher... that probably won't lead to any opportunity to discuss Canadian politics. If the opportunity were to arise, however, I must say that my feelings about confederation are not all that negative. To tell you the truth I don't care all that much. That's not to say that I don't care about the other provinces or the people that call them home... I do very much. It just means that since I place VERY little importance on economic growh of Canada as a whole, provincially, locally or whatever. Economic growh is a measurement of competition between elites of wealthy nations (wealthy in the true meaning, not in the monetary sense = one can be wealthy without a cent to their name). I care more about the local cultures and intersts of everyone as well as the amount of damage we cause to the land within our borders (and the damage within other borders that we condone by importing good) by exploiting natural resources and transporting them across our HUGE country (burning fuel). I'd like to see us keep everything local... manufacturing (of things that we actually need rather than things companies want to sell us, that sometimes make our lives easier but simultaneous make us weaker and increasingly dependent on 'things' not essential to life). We can still maintain friendly relationships even though we're not governed by the same organisation. I mean, I like my neighbours, but we don't have to pool our money and pay for our expenses jointly. That's not to say that I don't want to share my money. I'd just much rather a society in which money isn't so important to individuals as well as society. As for defences, tell me, why do we need to protect ourselves? Conservative types will talk a lot about how we need to protect ourselves from terrorists. I don't know about you but I don't go around punching people for no reason. I don't go kicking expensive cars because I'm jealous of the rich people that own them. As an adolescent I didn't hate kids who had more freedoms than I had. So why do these 'terrorists' attack? Obviously, the people (or at least the people they perceive to have wronged them) that they attack did something to piss them off. So, don't piss them off!! In the words of the great Albert Einstein "Peach cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding". If we define 'understanding' as ( I am pretty sure I'm wrong about who said this, but...) Freud did, "to understand is to forgive", then what does it take to keep peace? True COMMUNICATION!! Don't even bother trying to say that we've tried... or that anyone (by this I mean leaders of states and such) has tried. Nobody has. The defences you speak of are only necessary because we're so high up on our horse that we can't talk with those who might attack us. RCMP? Why? What do they do that local police (or provincial) can't do? Perhaps I'm a bit naive when it comes to these things, but the ideas that I'm expressing are real and plausible... maybe not in a world dominated by 'business' types, because their values and motives are already in conflict with sustained life on Earth (not just human life), but they are plausible. All in all, the historical reasons for a united Canada are irrelevant. The modern reasons make sense only in the context of a competition between the world's elites. It would be easier for MANY reasons if Canada were to separate. European countries get along just fine... don't they?

Perhaps 'plaything' is a term that can be misunderstood, or in your case, intentionally misinterpreted to support your idea. We are the 'guardians' of the Earth? Does this not imply that it is under our control? Or, maybe you would prefer to use another word instead of control. We are responsible for everything that happens on Earth, at least everything that we do here. Well, does the Earth NEED a guardian? It was around for millons of years before our species even came to be. (If you want to dispute that I'll be happy to engage with you). Did it NEED a guardian then? No. So what are we 'guarding' it from? US! We seem to think we need to do things to preserve it when all we really need to do is leave it alone! We belong to the Earth, the Earth does not belong to us. I'm out there? Well, let's get real here. If you want to refer to genesis, you will show how 'out there' the religious people that follow the book are. (You can pick and choose which parts you want to take literally... I suppose that's all you can do with such a horrible book such as genesis). Did you read the story of Sodom? There's two VERY similar stories, that I know of, so I might mix this one up... but if I do, then I'm paraphrasing the other one (that I know of). So in this story a preist comes to visit some man. The villagers form a mob and demand that this man turn the priest over to them. He says 'no, but have my daughters instead, and "HUMBLE" them'!!! So, rather than give up a priest he passes his daughters on to be raped and sodomized. Well, I'm sure that my representation isn't accurate, but it IS a story in genesis and there is another one like it. Point being, it's a WHACKED out book. If you want to take your morals and understandings of the Earth from it, then I question YOUR mental fitness. There is no god to tell us how we ought to live. There are books and stories that have been designed to serve the purposes of 'somebody'.

There are some people who decide not to define Buddhism as a religion, but rather a way of life or a philosophy. Indeed there isn't really anything to worship as a Buddhist (there are... sects, I suppose you would call them, that do seem to follow a hybridized version however). It's more about self control, enlightenment and meditation. Fighting wars would get in the way of achieving nirvana! But, I mean, it is a philosophy/religion born out of Hinduism, whatever that tells you. (This is a pretty useless paragraph). Perhaps my words were too general. But then how do you pick on specific religions and tell people they're wrong? That's what followers of each have been doing to each other for a long time. The harm to the planet isn't the result of religion itself. Think about it... the knowledge that you were made in the image of god, or you are among the chosen people, or anything along those lines... how would you feel about your role as a human on Earth? It's not that anything forces, influences or even compels us to plunder the Earth's 'resources'. It's that we somehow feel that we are allowed to/supposed to. More specifically, it's that there is no consideration for all of the other living beings... we just do as we do because we are human. Read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael". It's an incredible book... an important one to, I believe. Quinn explains it by saying that we have come to live as though 'the Earth belongs to us' rather than the way our tribal ancestors lived as though 'they belonged to the Earth'. Ever hear the idea that the story of Adam and Eve is actually prehistoric war propaganda?

Please elaborate.

Oh I don't want Toronto to be on it's own. I was referring to what the people that I have met from out east and out west have told me that they think of us. I'm not gonna lie, we're pretty arrogant, but I think the whole 'centre of the universe' thing is unfair... maybe not for the Bay St. clowns! Since you chose the term Western separatism... I think it's only a matter of time before the U.S. breaks up. Take a look at some of the discussions here www.conservativesforum.com These people scare me! And I don't think they're a minority down there!

I used to be of the opinion that belief in a 'god' was an individual's personal choice which I had no right to question. However, after reading Richard Dawkins's "God Delusion" and Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" I have changed my mind. One of the core beliefs held by those that worship a god (I'm generalizing god to focus on the three 'Big' religions) is that humans are the rulers of the Earth (since we are made in 'his' image). We have come to believe, rather, take for granted that the Earth and its contents are our playthings. This has led to the extinction of so many more living things than is natural, and possibly global warming (who knows if it's the result of our actions... it could be though!). It has also led to many wars as well as the indoctrination of innocent children too young to have belief systems, limiting the scope of ideas that they are allowed to encounter and analyze at a young age, perhaps hindering their development. "God" does more damage than good (if there is any good) to society. While it may benefit an individual, at least to the extent that they are incapable of logical thought and too weak to be responsible for their own life, it hurts every other living being on the planet.

Well, just because I live here doesn't mean that I necessarily like everything about our society (mind you, there isn't a place on Earth, that I am aware of, which would satisfy all my personal preferences... I presume the same is true for everyone). If you want to discuss 'anti-corporate' influences, I'd be more than happy to do so in another thread. Here, I want to learn about economics (which sometimes seems that it is used interchangeably with what I understand to be finance... maybe my understanding is wrong). If I express my views on the generalized corporation, I run the risk of never being taken seriously when I ask questions about free-market thinkers. Something that you can explain to me is, how are my wages going to be ultimately linked to corporations? (Again, sincere question). Thank you for your reply Geoffrey. I too see no true value in a united Canada. Being from Toronto, I suppose that's the expected stance. We are supposed to think of ourselves as the centre of the universe, after all. But since I'm no business buff (and 'anti-corporate'), I could care less about economic reasons for separating. However, I am fully on board when you say that we are a regionalised country with diverse interests. I would love to see each province (for example... I really don't know where the lines would best be drawn) become its own country. I'll take it a step further and say that I'd love to see each province become completely self sustained. Global/international trade serves little purpose beyond economic growth (which is a nice piece of data but mostly benefits those at the helm of corporations anyway) and meeting superficial, manufactured desires of ignorant consumers. I find it hard to believe that there is anything that can be made that can't be made here in Ontario. But I can't speak for other provinces because I'm not familiar with the (LIMITED) natural resources found in each. I've said too much about my views which are irrelevant here, but the point is that I think we would all be happier without confederation. So why then if people from opposite ends of the 'political spectrum' (I HATE calling it that, since the range of views is hardly linear or even contiguous) are of the opinion that all of Canada is better off separate, then why is it such a 'fringe' idea?

Hello kids, I am new to this forum and am approaching it from a different angle than most of you do (so it seems). I am not an economist, political scientist and I have VERY limited knowledge about the way 'business' works. Truth be told, I am a soon to be high school science teacher. So, if any of you would have the courtesy to share your opinion/knowledge about my questions, with my status as an economic layperson in mind, it would be greatly appreciated. I have read a few threads, and while I am one of those 'anti-corporate' type people that some of you have expressed distaste for, people like Geoffrey have made a lot of sense to me with their totally free market preferences (I have a lot of questions about that stuff... but I'll save it for later). I am now wondering, why would people of this mindset, now or at the time of confederation, want to have a united Canada? Is there an economic benefit, or is it something else? In short, what point is there in confederation? (I am not expressing any opinion... I am just sincerely curious).