Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Dean Curran, Associate Professor, Sociology, University of Calgary

People’s lives are more enmeshed with digital systems than ever before, increasing users’ vulnerability and insecurity. From data leaks like the 2017 Equifax data breach to the more recent cyberattack on British retailer Marks & Spencer, business operations and data on the internet continue to be vulnerable.

There are good reasons to believe that little will be done about these risks until a massive society-wide crisis emerges.

My research suggests that there are significant failures in our current approaches to risk and innovation. Digital technologies remake social life through new technologies, communication platforms and forms of artificial intelligence. All of which, while very powerful, are also highly risky in terms of malfunctioning and vulnerability to being manipulated.

Yet, governments are generally unable to distinguish between what are actually valuable contributions to society and what are intensely socially damaging.

A massive social experiment

The digital economy includes “those businesses that increasingly rely upon information technology, data and the internet for their business models.” The companies dominating the digital economy continue to undertake a massive social experiment where they keep the lion’s share of the benefits while shunting the risks onto society as a whole.

This could lead to a systemic digital crisis, ranging from a widespread breakdown of basic infrastructure, such as electricity or telecommunications due to a cyberattack, to an attack that modifies existing infrastructure to make it dangerous.

There are significant similarities between the current trajectory of the digital economy and the 2008 financial crisis. In particular, what we are increasingly seeing in the digital world, which we saw in the pre-crisis financial world, is what American sociologist Charles Perrow called “tight coupling.”

Perrow argues that when systems exhibit high levels of interconnection without sufficient redundancy to compensate for failures, it can lead to catastrophic consequences.

Likewise, high levels of complexity are generally considered to make highly interconnected systems riskier. Unanticipated risks and connections can lead to failures cascading across the system.

Increasing interdependence

Our existing digital economy shares many of these characteristics. The digital economy is characterized by a business model that focuses on businesses getting as large as possible as quickly as possible.

The lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis and the current digital economy share both the amplification of interdependency alongside the reduction of redundancy. In the case of finance, this proceeded through massive borrowing to leverage earnings, leaving a smaller ratio of money left to cover any possible losses.

In the digital economy, this need to continually collect data increases interdependencies among datasets, platforms, corporations and networks. This increased interdependency is fundamental to the core business model of the digital economy.

The undermining of redundancy in the digital sphere is manifested in the “move-fast-and-break-things” ethos in which digital companies eliminate or acquire competitors as quickly as possible while eliminating analog alternatives to their own digital networks.

Last, these digital behemoths and their rapid growth increase the complexity of the digital economy and the monopolistic networks that dominate it.

Obvious warning signs

There is a key difference between the 2008 financial crisis and the contemporary digital economy. Unlike in the lead-up to the crisis, where a partially finance-driven prosperity quieted any obvious warning signs, the warning signs in the digital economy are front and centre for everyone to see.

The 2017 WannaCry and NotPetya malware attacks each caused billions of dollars in damages. More recently, the CrowdStrike failure in 2024 cancelled thousands of flights, and even took television stations off the air. Constant hacks, ransomware attacks and data leakages are warning signs that this is a deeply fragile system.

AI has taken many of these vulnerabilities into overdrive, while adding new risks, such as AI hallucinations and the exponential growth in misinformation. The speed and scale of AI are expected to intensify existing risks to confidentiality, system integrity and availability.

This is potentially the most significant, though unfortunate element in this story. There is massive system risk, yet they are not addressed directly, and the processes heightening these risks continue to accelerate.

This suggests a deeper problem in our politics. While we do have some ability to regulate after the damage is done, we struggle to prevent the next crisis.

Dean Curran received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. The warning signs are clear: We’re heading toward a digital crisis – https://theconversation.com/the-warning-signs-are-clear-were-heading-toward-a-digital-crisis-264529

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Leda Stawnychko, Associate Professor of Strategy and Organizational Theory, Mount Royal University

Once considered a universal good, empathy now divides as much as it unites. Empathy has long been viewed as a straightforward strength in leadership, but it has recently become a political flashpoint.

Some conservative voices, including billionaire Elon Musk, have criticized empathy, with Musk calling it a “fundamental weakness of western civilization.”

Joe Rigney, a theology fellow at New Saint Andrew’s College in Idaho, has gone further, calling it a “sin”. He argues “untethered empathy” can distort moral judgment because it may lead to people excusing harmful behaviour simply because they sympathize with the person experiencing it.

Few qualities in public life have undergone such a dramatic shift in perception as empathy. Once celebrated as both a marker of moral character and an essential leadership skill, empathy now sits at the centre of polarized debates about governance and policy.

The so-called “war” over empathy reveals not only divided views of leadership but also deeper anxieties about how we connect with one another. These tensions raise important questions about the history, promise, pitfalls and future of empathy.

What is empathy?

The modern term traces back from the German term einfühlung, which was first used in the context of esthetics to describe the emotional response a person feels when imagining themselves moving through a painting, sculpture or scene of natural beauty.

The English term “empathy” was coined in 1908. What began as a way of describing how people relate to art later moved into psychology and leadership as researchers began to study how people identify with the feelings of others.

From there, empathy evolved into a cornerstone skill in business and management to help leaders connect more deeply with others and improve both relationships and performance.

For decades, this was presented as a clear asset. Today, however, that same capacity is viewed by some as a liability rather than a strength.

Why empathy matters

Empathetic leaders can translate this capacity into practical advantage. In organizations, empathy fosters innovation by creating psychological safety — the sense that people feel they can take interpersonal risks, such as sharing ideas without fear of ridicule or retaliation.

Research shows teams learn faster and perform better when people feel safe to speak up. Empathy supports that safety by making listening genuine rather than performative. For example, when leaders regularly ask “What perspectives are we missing?” they signal that speaking up carries little risk. Empathy also strengthens collaboration by enabling leaders to recognize diverse perspectives and weave them into collective problem-solving.

By supporting growth and risk-taking, it reinforces succession pipelines and helps employees step into new responsibilities. Through deep listening and thoughtful responses, empathetic leaders build trust, inspire commitment and help teams remain resilient in the face of change.

Beyond the workplace, empathy also contributes to broader human flourishing. Findings vary across studies, but empathetic people tend to be happier, form stronger friendships and excel in their work. Health-care patients, employees and romantic partners all report higher satisfaction when empathy is present.

Still, despite its many benefits, empathy is not immune to distortion in workplaces, politics and society at large.

The paradox and politics of empathy

Empathy carries an inherent paradox: people can feel genuine compassion while also recognizing the practical limits of what can realistically be offered.

In workplaces, for example, managers may empathize with employees seeking flexibility while also facing pressure to deliver results. Leaders often face difficult questions about fairness when resources are tight and not everyone’s needs can be met.

In politics, a similar dilemma arises. Leaders may, for example, express concern for refugees fleeing conflict while balancing that compassion against constraints on housing, health care and employment in the host country. Here, empathy can clash with competing obligations.

Beyond these limits, empathy can also be distorted when it lacks ethical grounding. Without self-awareness and judgment, it can lead to compassion fatigue or even be used strategically as a tool of manipulation and control. For example, after a child in Texas died from measles, anti-vaccine influencers used the case to stoke outrage and influence public opinion.

Research on negotiations highlights a related risk. Being able to understand someone else’s perspective can help reveal the other side’s constraints and lead to better deals, but feeling their emotions too deeply can pull negotiators off their strategy.

These concerns echo in the broader culture. Critics of empathy argue it has been politicized or weaponized to enforce conformity, with those who fail to display it toward certain groups being portrayed as weak or immoral.

The future of empathy

Although findings are mixed, some studies suggest that empathy, especially among younger generations, has been in decline over the past few decades.

The reasons for this are debated, ranging from the rise of digital communication to broader social and political polarization. Regardless of the cause, the perception of decline has fuelled renewed interest in its study.

Empathy does not mean blindly agreeing with everyone or absorbing every emotion. It calls for listening with genuine curiosity, asking perspective-seeking questions and creating space for others to share their truths.

Simple practices such as naming emotions, noticing body language or imagining how a situation might feel to someone else can strengthen our capacity to connect.

When practised ethically and with courage, empathy has the potential to extend from private virtue to collective strength, and be used to rebuild trust, bridge divides, sustain communities and keep leadership anchored in humanity.

Leda Stawnychko has received SSHRC funding.

Kris Hans does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Empathy is under attack — but it remains vital for leadership and connection – https://theconversation.com/empathy-is-under-attack-but-it-remains-vital-for-leadership-and-connection-265468

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Samuel Mugo, Professor & Associate Dean, Development, Department of Physical Sciences, MacEwan University

Farmers are under pressure. Fertilizer costs have soared in recent years. Tariffs are increasing equipment costs and cutting Canadian farmers off from key foreign markets. And climate change is bringing its own set of challenges.

Meanwhile, agriculture is also facing calls to reduce emissions. The industry is responsible for about 10 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government has set an ambitious goal: reduce emissions from fertilizer use by 30 per cent by 2030.

Farming is tough even during the best of times. Rising costs and the dangers posed by climate change will only make it even more challenging in the years to come.

That’s where our work comes in. At MacEwan University, through our spin-out company PimaSens, we have developed Agrilo — a low-cost soil testing sensor paired with a smartphone app.

Our goal is simple: give farmers clear, real-time guidance on fertilizer use so they can save money, boost yields and protect the environment.

How the sensor works

Agrilo takes technology we first built in the lab and translates it into an easy-to-use diagnostic tool for the field. Unlike traditional soil testing, which often requires sending samples to a lab and waiting days for results, Agrilo provides answers in minutes.

Farmers collect a small soil sample, react it with a pre-filled solution, place droplets onto a paper-based or vinyl colorimetric sensor, and capture the result using their phone camera. The Agrilo app then interprets the colour change, quantifies nutrient levels, and generates fertilizer recommendations tailored to the field.

Each Agrilo sensor costs about $10 and is designed to detect a specific nutrient or soil property. The full suite includes sensors for: nitrate, phosphate, potassium, pH, sulphur, magnesium, manganese, calcium, boron, iron, natural organic matter, cation exchange capacity and more.

Farmers can select the tests most relevant to their crops and soils. These results feed directly into Agrilo’s smartphone app, which analyzes patterns and suggests the most optimal fertilizer adjustments.

This precision is critical. Overuse of fertilizer wastes money and increases greenhouse gases, while underuse limits yields. Getting the balance right improves farm efficiency and protects ecosystems.

With fertilizer shortages, soil degradation accelerating and climate concerns mounting, there is an urgent need for practical solutions that can be deployed quickly and affordably.

For farmers, the value is clear:

● Healthier soil through balanced nutrient application.

● Higher crop yields from optimized fertilizer use.

● Lower costs by reducing waste.

● Reduced environmental harm from nutrient runoff and fertilizer-related emissions.

The research behind the tool

Our sensors and platform have been validated in peer-reviewed research with the Agrilo version simplified for ease of use by farmers. We also hold a provisional patent, with a full filing in progress. This ensures that the innovation is both scientifically sound and protected for scaling.

Agrilo was created to be both affordable and accessible. Conventional soil testing often costs hundreds of dollars and involves long wait times. Agrilo delivers the same type of data — validated against results from traditional labs — at a fraction of the cost and in real time.

This opens up opportunities not just for Canadian farmers but also for communities worldwide, including schools and small scale farmers in the Global South.

One of the most exciting aspects of Agrilo is its versatility. Beyond the farm, Agrilo doubles as an education platform. In classrooms, students can learn hands-on how soil nutrients affect crops, food security and ecosystems.

Using the same colorimetric sensors as farmers, students can connect textbook science to real-world environmental challenges — making soil chemistry, agriculture and sustainability more tangible.

Globally, fertilizer use has increased by 46 per cent since 1990. About one third of the world’s soils are already degraded, with degradation continuing to accelerate.

By making precision agriculture practical and affordable, we can help address these challenges at scale — showcasing how research developed in Canadian labs can benefit farms, classrooms and communities worldwide.

Looking ahead

Our team is continuing to refine Agrilo. We are already testing the platform with farmers and partners in Canada, Kenya, Costa Rica and beyond.

At the same time, we are building partnerships with schools and international organizations to use Agrilo as both a farming tool and a hands-on educational resource. Several high schools in Alberta have started to try out the Agrilo tool to enhance applied science learning.

Ultimately, our vision is to make precision agriculture accessible to everyone — not just large-scale industrial operations. With the right tools, all farmers can play a critical role in feeding the world sustainably, protecting ecosystems and helping their countries meet their climate goals.

Samuel Mugo is a co-founder of PimaSens. He receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Mohammed Elmorsy is a co-founder of PimaSens. He has received research funding related to this work through Riipen and Alberta Innovates Summer Research Studentships.

– ref. How researchers are making precision agriculture more affordable – https://theconversation.com/how-researchers-are-making-precision-agriculture-more-affordable-265366

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daryl Janzen, Observatory Manager and Instructor, Astronomy, University of Saskatchewan

Whether space-time exists should neither be controversial nor even conceptually challenging, given the definitions of “space-time,” “events” and “instants.” The idea that space-time exists is no more viable than the outdated belief that the celestial sphere exists: both are observer-centred models that are powerful and convenient for describing the world, but neither represents reality itself.

---

Read more:
What, exactly, is space-time?

---

Yet from the standpoints of modern physics, philosophy, popular science communication and familiar themes in science fiction, stating that space-time does not exist is contentious.

But what would it mean for a world where everything that has ever happened or will happen somehow “exists” now as part of an interwoven fabric?

Events are not locations

It’s easy to imagine past events — like losing a tooth or receiving good news — as existing somewhere. Fictional representations of time travel underscore this: time travellers alter events and disrupt the timeline, as if past and future events were locations one could visit with the right technology.

Philosophers often talk this way too. Eternalism says all events across all time exist. The growing block view suggests the past and present exist while the future will come to be. Presentism says only the present exists, while the past used to exist and the future will when it happens. And general relativity presents a four-dimensional continuum that bends and curves — we tend to imagine that continuum of the events as really existing.

The confusion emerges out of the definition of the word “exist.” With space-time, it’s applied uncritically to a mathematical description of happenings — turning a model into an ontological theory on the nature of being.

A totality

In physics, space-time is the continuous set of events that happen throughout space and time — from here to the furthest galaxy, from the Big Bang to the far future. It is a four-dimensional map that records and measures where and when everything happens. In physics, an event is an instantaneous occurrence at a specific place and time.

An instant is the three-dimensional collection of spatially separated events that happen “at the same time” (with relativity’s usual caveat that simultaneity depends on one’s relative state of rest).

Space-time is the totality of all events that ever happen.

It’s also our most powerful way of cataloguing the world’s happenings. That cataloguing is indispensable, but the words and concepts we use for it matter.

There are infinitely many points in the three dimensions of space, and at every instant as time passes a unique event occurs at each location.

Positionings throughout time

Physicists describe a car travelling straight at constant speed with a simple space-time diagram: position on one axis, time on the other. Instants stack together to form a two-dimensional space-time. The car’s position is a point within each instant, and those points join to form a worldline — the full record of the car’s position throughout the time interval, whose slope is the car’s speed.

Real motion is far more complex. The car rides along on a rotating Earth orbiting the sun, which orbits the Milky Way as it drifts through the local universe. Plotting the car’s position at every instant ultimately requires four-dimensional space-time.

Space-time is the map of where and when events happen. A worldline is the record of every event that occurs throughout one’s life. The key question is whether the map — or all the events it draws together at once — should be said to exist in the same way that cars, people and the places they go exist.

Objects exist

Consider what “exist” means. Objects, buildings, people, cities, planets, galaxies exist — they are either places or occupy places, enduring there over intervals of time. They persist through changes and can be encountered repeatedly.

Treating occurrences as things that exist smuggles confusion into our language and concepts. When analyzing space-time, do events, instants, worldlines or even space-time as a whole exist in the same sense as places and people? Or is it more accurate to say that events happen in an existing world?

On that view, space-time is the map that records those happenings, allowing us to describe the spatial and temporal relationships between them.

Space-time does not exist

Events do not exist, they happen. Consequently, space-time does not exist. Events happen everywhere throughout the course of existence, and the occurrence of an event is categorically different from the existence of anything — whether object, place or concept.

First, there is no empirical evidence that any past, present or future event “exists” in the way that things in the world around us exist. Verifying the existence of an event as an ongoing object would require something like a time machine to go and observe it now. Even present events cannot be verified as ongoing things that exist.

In contrast, material objects exist. Time-travel paradoxes rest on the false premise that events exist as revisitable locations. Recognizing the categorical difference between occurrence and existence resolves these paradoxes.

---

Read more:
Can we time travel? A theoretical physicist provides some answers

---

Second, this recognition reframes the philosophy of time. Much debate over the past century has treated events as things that exist. Philosophers then focus on their tense properties: is an event past, present or future? Did this one occur earlier or later than that one?

These discussions rely on an assumption that events are existent things that bear these properties. From there, it’s a short step to the conclusion that time is unreal or that the passage of time is an illusion, on the identification that the same event can be labelled differently from different standpoints. But the ontological distinction was lost at the start: events don’t exist, they happen. Tense and order are features of how happenings relate within an existing world, not properties of existent objects.

Finally, consider relativity. It is a mathematical theory that describes a four-dimensional space-time continuum, and not a theory about a four-dimensional thing that exists — that, in the course of its own existence, bends and warps due to gravity.

Conceptual clarity

Physics can’t actually describe space-time itself as something that actually exists, nor can it account for any change it might experience as an existing thing.

Space-time provides a powerful description of how events happen: how they are ordered relative to one another, how sequences of events are measured to unfold and how lengths are measured in different reference frames. If we stop saying that events — and space-time — exist, we recover conceptual clarity without sacrificing a single prediction.

Daryl Janzen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Space-time doesn’t exist — but it’s a useful framework for understanding our reality – https://theconversation.com/space-time-doesnt-exist-but-its-a-useful-framework-for-understanding-our-reality-265952

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martin Danahay, Professor, English Language and Literature, Brock University

The United States military under the Donald Trump administration has sunk three Venezuelan boats that were allegedly ferrying drugs. American officials branded the people on the boats “narcoterrorists.”

The term “narcoterrorist” conflates the U.S. internal “war on drugs” and external “war on terror” and suggests drug smuggling is punishable by death without trial.

Canada, incidentally, has followed the lead of the U.S. by designating a list of drug cartels as terrorist organizations. This means Canada is now involved in the expansion of violence against people associated with drug smuggling or drug use when they’re labelled terrorists. It also aligns Canada with the American “war on drugs.”

The problem with the language of war

The problem with both terms — the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” — lies in how they serve to justify killing people. Violence is portrayed as an appropriate response to a threat from an “enemy” rather than an attack on people who may or may not be linked to drugs or terrorism.

The attacks are carried out without the submission of evidence, and it’s almost impossible to verify claims of guilt after the fact.

A brief look at the origins of the U.S. war on drugs shows how the term “war” can be used to normalize acts of oppression or violence.

It began in June 1971 when President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy No. 1” and announced a co-ordinated federal campaign against narcotics as part of a “law-and-order” campaign. His emphasis on fighting crime played upon his belief that “people react to fear, not love.”

Drugs and politics

While fear of drug use predated his presidency, Nixon made the issue a central part of his domestic policy. He framed his efforts as a fight to protect public health and safety as the justification for increasing the scope of police actions against drug sellers and users.

The Shafer Commission, appointed by Nixon, recommended decriminalizing marijuana in 1972, but he ignored its findings and instead enacted more punitive anti-drug legislation.

Portraying drugs and drug users as a threat was a central part of Nixon’s law-and-order campaign. Privately, however, aides later revealed that his drug policy was also used to target political opponents, particularly anti-Vietnam War activists and Black communities — by associating them with drugs and justifying an increase in policing.

Nixon continued drug enforcement in the U.S. as well as through international policies aimed at curbing drug production. His administration’s war on drugs was not just a social order initiative, but a political strategy that weaponized drug policy to consolidate power and marginalize opponents.

Nixon aide John Ehrlichman later revealed the explicitly political nature of this campaign. By linking heroin to Black communities and marijuana to anti-war activists, the administration could discredit those groups and justify heavy policing and incarceration.

The “war on drugs” therefore relied on racist attitudes to justify its heavy enforcement of Black communities.

People, not enemies

By branding the initiative a war on drugs, Nixon turned people addicted to drugs into enemies and implicitly made acceptable levels of oppression that would not be tolerated under normal circumstances.

But drugs are not a force that an army can defeat. The war on drugs has been a failure and become the longest “war” in U.S. history.

The idea of a war on drugs erases people from the equation and dehumanizes them. Similarly, the war on terror emphasized an emotion, namely terror, and used that emotion to justify U.S. military actions abroad, including the ill-fated Iraq War.

The recent attacks on Venezuelan boats alleged to be transporting drugs follow this pattern of justifying acts of violence in the name of combating drugs. Both exploit an understandable fear of drug addiction or of a terrorist attack, and use that emotion to silence criticism of acts of violence as illegal and inhumane.

Decades later, Nixon’s campaign to demonize drugs has now coalesced with the war on terror, even though the term “war” seems inappropriate in both cases.

Invoking war hastens decisions and short-circuits debate, because in a military conflict, decisiveness is crucial to avoid defeat. While initially declaring a war on drugs or terrorists may rally people in the short term, in the long term, it damages both domestic social policy as well as international relations.

Due process

In the recent strikes against Venezuelan ships, the U.S. could have apprehended the boats in international waters and brought the people on board to trial.

This was the procedure during the recent Operation Pacific Viper in the east Pacific, when the U.S. Coast Guard boarded vessels and detained people accused of smuggling cocaine.

The U.S. could have followed the same procedure with the boats from Venezuela, but calling the people on board “narcoterrorists” implicitly justified characterizing them as enemy combatants in the war on drugs.

They were civilian vessels, not part of the Venezuelan military. There may or may not have been drugs on board, and the people may not have been drug smugglers, but the world will never know for certain because the U.S. military killed them and sank their boats.

The language of war in such cases justifies actions made for political motives and undermines the rule of law. Overall it is part of a wider use of the term war by Trump, who recently also seemed to declare war on the city of Chicago.

It’s all of an ongoing weaponization of the term “war” to assert dominance and justify violence, whether internally against American cities or externally against people the government calls “narcoterrorists.”

Martin Danahay does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Not enemies, but people: Why the world needs to rethink the language of war – https://theconversation.com/not-enemies-but-people-why-the-world-needs-to-rethink-the-language-of-war-265466

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Liv Yoon, Assistant Professor, School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia

In June 2021, British Columbia experienced an extreme climate event. A heat dome trapped hot air over the province, pushing temperatures to record highs for several days, killing more than 600 people.

A closer look at the numbers revealed something even more startling: people with schizophrenia — just one per cent of the population — made up 15.7 per cent of the deaths. This statistic underscores a troubling truth: climate change does not affect everyone equally.

Research by the BC Centre for Disease Control found that during the heat dome, people with schizophrenia had roughly three times the risk of dying compared to those without schizophrenia, more than any other chronic condition. Even before introducing housing or other critical social determinants of health, this diagnosis alone carried a much higher mortality risk.

Without targeted action, the most marginalized will continue to face the greatest risks. The heat dome revealed how schizophrenia combined with poverty, precarious and poor-quality housing, medication effects, stigma and social isolation led to a uniquely lethal risk.

As heatwaves grow more frequent and intense with climate change, public health and housing policy must shift from expecting people to cope on their own toward ensuring people are able to stay cool enough.

How schizophrenia increases heat risks

In a recent study, we interviewed 35 people with schizophrenia who lived through the 2021 heat dome for a more granular look at what it took to survive. Participants described suffering the physical effects (fainting, heat rash, exhaustion) and worsening symptoms like hallucinations, disrupted sleep and emotional distress.

Symptoms such as paranoia caused many to avoid news coverage, government warnings or even caretakers. This means many never received — or trusted — urgent alerts issued during the heat dome, and knowledge gaps were common.

For many, public cooling centres felt unsafe or unwelcoming due to previous experiences being stigmatized and feared because of their schizophrenia diagnosis. The stigma around schizophrenia also discouraged many individuals from seeking medical care or other public supports.

Homelessness or poor housing quality was another significant factor that compounded vulnerability. Many interviewees lived in older apartments without air conditioning. Others were unhoused and had to cope without shade, water or safe places to rest. For these reasons, staying cool indoors was not an option for many.

The result was a tragic overlap: people with the fewest resources to cope with extreme heat were also the least able to access help.

Why individual advice isn’t enough

Public health advice for heatwaves often focuses on individual actions: seek shade, buy a fan or check in on neighbours. While important, these messages assume equal access to information and resources — but evidence shows that many people with schizophrenia experience significant barriers to accessing them.

This way of thinking reflects a broader societal tendency to treat health as a matter of personal responsibility: that in the heat, each of us is on our own to prepare. But the disproportionate number of deaths among people with schizophrenia illustrates the flaw in this approach.

Our interviews revealed that many indeed internalized their struggles during the heat dome as personal shortcomings, when in reality, the problem was systemic: inadequate housing, limited access to care, widespread and debilitating social stigma and the lack of tailored public health strategies.

A different approach

To prevent the tragedies of 2021 from happening again, policymakers and experts need to view access to cool, safe spaces as a basic right. This means moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach for advice, to one addressing the realities faced by those most at risk.

To be clear, this rights-based approach does not mean abandoning practical individual measures that save lives, such as opening public cooling centres or reminding people to drink water. These remain essential in the short term. But on their own, they are not enough.

To truly protect people with schizophrenia and others at high risk, these responses must unfold within a broader vision that treats access to safe temperatures as a basic right.

That means investing in affordable, climate-resilient housing and ensuring cooling centres are welcoming and accessible for all. It also means addressing stigma around mental health challenges, tailoring health advice to account for anti-psychotic medications and supporting outreach through trusted community networks.

We need both immediate interventions that provide relief during a heatwave and structural changes that address the root causes of vulnerability. Without this dual approach, responses to heatwaves will leave the same people exposed when the next extreme event arrives. Our goal should not be fewer deaths; we should aim for no deaths.

Structural solutions needed

The 2021 heat dome was tragic — more so because deaths were not inevitable. They were the result of overlapping vulnerabilities that our current housing and welfare systems fail to address. People with schizophrenia are not inherently more vulnerable to heat; they are made more vulnerable by the obstacles that shape their lives.

This means that solutions must also be structural. We need to change how we think about extreme heat; it is not just a natural hazard. It is a reflection of how social systems are failing people, especially those on the sharp edges of inequality.

Viewing cooling as a right means investing in societies that are more resilient to heat. This means governments investing in safer and more accessible housing for all, building welcoming public spaces, fostering a society where neighbours know and care for each other and allowing people with lived experience to play a central role in shaping future heat-health planning.

Liv Yoon received funding from Health Canada’s Climate Change and Health Office for the study that informs this article.

Samantha Mew does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. People with schizophrenia were hit hard by B.C.’s deadly 2021 heat dome – https://theconversation.com/people-with-schizophrenia-were-hit-hard-by-b-c-s-deadly-2021-heat-dome-265173

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rylan Graham, Assistant Professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Canada’s mid-sized cities — those with populations between 50,000 to 500,000 — have long been characterized as low-density, dispersed and decentralized. In these cities, cars dominate, public transit is limited and residents prefer the space and privacy of suburban neighbourhoods.

Several mounting issues, ranging from climate change and the housing affordability crisis to the growing infrastructure deficit, are challenging municipalities to rethink this approach.

Cities are adopting growth management strategies that promote density and seek to curtail, rather than encourage, urban sprawl. Key to this is intensification, a strategy that prioritizes adding new housing in existing and mature neighbourhoods instead of outward expansion along the city’s edge.

City centres are often central to intensification strategies, given the abundance of vacant or underused land. Adding more residents supports downtown revitalization efforts, while simultaneously curbing urban sprawl.

Challenges of intensification

Despite the adoption of bold policies, our research shows that implementation remains a challenge. In 2013, Regina set an intensification target requiring that 30 per cent of the housing built each year would be located within the city’s mature and established neighbourhoods. But between 2014 and 2021, the target was missed each year, and almost all growth occurred at the edge of the city in the form of new suburban development.

This disconnect is not particularly unique and is often referred to as the “say-do gap,” where development outcomes differ from intentions. This presents real challenges for cities trying to shift away from low-density suburban growth towards higher-density development.

Because Canada is a suburban nation, dense and compact mid-sized cities are atypical. A series of barriers further entrench this, including low demand for high-density urban living, difficulties in assembling land, aging infrastructure and overly rigid planning rules and processes that stifle innovation.

The failure to implement higher-density development raises the question: is intensification in mid-sized cities more aspirational than viable?

Success stories

Several mid-sized cities have experienced recent success with intensification. This has been marked by a flurry of downtown development activity, including new condos and rental towers.

Between 2016 and 2021, the number of downtown residents in Canadian cities increased by 11 per cent, exceeding the previous five-year period of 4.6 per cent.

Among the success stories is Halifax, which had a 25 per cent increase — the fastest downtown growth in Canada. Kelowna was not far behind, with a 23 per cent increase in its downtown residential population.

Other mid-sized cities, including Kingston, Victoria, London, Abbotsford, Kamloops and Moncton, also experienced above-average growth over this period.

Evolving downtowns

This growth can be attributed to several factors, one of the most important being downtown livability: the presence of amenities and services that meet the needs of residents. Many downtowns have evolved to cater primarily to the needs of daytime office workers at the expense of residents, who live — or might like to live — downtown.

Kelowna, however, offers an alternative experience shaped by intentional efforts to make the downtown friendly to residents. Restaurants and cafes line the streets, mixed among services including medical offices, fitness studios and even a full-service grocery store, a rare find in a mid-sized city as many downtowns have become food deserts.

Cultural and civic amenities, including the central library, city hall, museums, galleries and entertainment venues — including a 7,000-seat arena — are downtown. The downtown also borders Okanagan Lake, offering access to recreational and natural amenities. Beyond convenience, the mix of amenities and services in Kelowna makes for a vibrant downtown, which is key to increasing the appeal for downtown living.

Other cities can take inspiration from Kelowna by re-imagining and reshaping the downtown as a vibrant urban neighbourhood — and not solely as a place where people come to work. Municipalities can complement these efforts by reforming overly complex and rigid regulations that impede intensification — not just downtown, but in other neighbourhoods too.

Reforming and clarifying regulations

Our research shows that while many developers support intensification in principle, they often favour low-density suburban development because it provides more predictable returns and approvals processes than downtown mixed-use developments. Many developers also lack the expertise to take on these more complex and riskier projects.

Unsurprisingly, developers in mid-sized cities want the same things as those in larger cities: clearer rules, faster approvals and financial incentives to build denser development in the locations planners are calling for, like downtowns. While developers have long advocated for these changes, governments are now responding with greater urgency.

The housing accelerator fund, introduced by the federal government in 2023, provides municipalities with millions in funding to support housing construction. In exchange, municipalities have reformed zoning regulations, introduced fiscal incentives and expedited the approval process.

In British Columbia, provincial legislation was introduced to permit up to four housing units on parcels that previously only allowed detached or semi-detached dwellings, and up to six units of housing on larger lots in residential zones near transit. The requirement for site-by-site public hearings has also been removed.

In B.C.’s larger cities, legislation was introduced to remove parking minimums and permit taller buildings and increased housing densities around transit hubs.

Regulatory reforms and improved approval processes aim to streamline development. While these are important changes in making mid-sized cities denser and more compact, the gap between planning ideals and market realities remains wide.

A major factor is opposition from residents and councillors, who frequently resist dense development because of perceptions and concerns about increased noise and traffic and lowered property values. This suggests there is work to be done beyond downtown investments, and regulatory and approval reforms to further facilitate intensification.

---

Read more:
From NIMBY to YIMBY: How localized real estate investment trusts can help address Canada’s housing crisis

---

Changing cities

Nonetheless, the surge of recent development activity and downtown population growth — in Halifax, Kelowna and elsewhere — reflect important milestones in the evolution of mid-sized cities.

This signals a notable departure from the longstanding narrative that frames these cities as low-density with depleted downtowns.

Recent developments give reason to be cautiously optimistic about a future where Canada’s mid-sized cities become denser and more compact, and with vibrant and liveable downtown cores.

Rylan Graham receives funding from SSHRC and the British Columbia Real Estate Foundation.

Jeffrey Biggar receives funding from SSHRC, MITACS, and the Province of Nova Scotia

– ref. Dense, compact urban growth is favoured by mid-sized Canadian cities – https://theconversation.com/dense-compact-urban-growth-is-favoured-by-mid-sized-canadian-cities-262848

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sophia Melanson Ricciardone, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University

Have you ever felt fired up with moral indignation after reading a controversial tweet, or after watching a YouTube video about a political topic?

Not only are you not alone, but these experiences online are likely by design. Our emotional landscapes have increasingly become the battleground where politicians compete for votes and power.

When political parties hire big data companies to help their candidates develop digital campaign strategies, like geofencing or programming social bots to inject key messaging into online political discussions, they could be treading on our universal rights and freedoms.

With our digital footprints — information about who we are — big data companies can group our likes, shares, retweets and purchases into virtual personality profiles and create content to match them.

This helps make what you read or watch seem personal and familiar, prompting the social parts of our brains to feel really good. And this, in turn, can cause us to lower our guard and trust information posted by social bots without even knowing it’s happening.

Social strengths make us vulnerable online

Historically, our social nature prepared us for the kind of large-scale co-operation that makes political institutions work. It enabled us to create the complex, modern societies we live in today. Understanding and sharing intentions were central to this evolution.

But there’s a catch: the very social strengths that make us successful as a species can now make us vulnerable online. With the use of AI technologies, our social connections can be simulated in highly realistic ways, manipulating our perceptions in the process.

AI-generated photos, videos and texts are being used for political advertising informed by augmented analytics, which create political ads personalized to our individual traits. This strategy is called microtargeting.

The situation gets more complicated when the content we see on social media isn’t created by humans but by social bots.

These are automated social media accounts designed to imitate us. By slipping naturally into our conversations, social bots make it nearly impossible to tell them apart from real human beings.

Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. They also affect how we feel about the other side of the proverbial political divide. They can also give us the impression that our way of thinking is aligned with the consensus.

What Bill C-4 has to do with online data

In Canada, political parties use third-party firms that can program bots to post this kind of content on social media during elections. For instance, political parties can use bots to dampen or suppress some messages while amplifying others, and this remains a legal practice in Canada.

In June 2025, the federal government introduced a bill on affordability — Bill C-4, the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act — that also touched on political parties’ use of personal data.

The bill requires each party to develop a privacy policy, but it doesn’t set clear guidelines for how our data can be used. This means parties can still collect and use traces of our digital behaviour to inform how they use AI to strategically communicate with us online, as long as they follow the policies they create and self-regulate.

Though part of the bill proposes changes to the Canada Elections Act, focusing on how parties can use our personal information, it takes only a small step to protect privacy. While political parties will be obligated to create a policy about the use of citizens’ private data, they will not be required to stop collecting our online data or using it to making predictions about our voting behaviour.

It also fails to provide Elections Canada or the federal privacy commissioner the power to enforce meaningful limitations on the use of our online engagement for such purposes. Even if parties publish their privacy policies publicly, any third-party consultancies they hire are likely to remain beyond enforcement, creating significant gaps in accountability.

Why does this matter? Misused data could harm our rights to privacy and to participate in democratic elections free from manipulation.

Why political parties need universal guardrails

While Bill C-4 does force political parties to create privacy policies and assign someone to oversee them, the way those policies are handled is left up to the parties themselves.

Without clear and universal guardrails for how parties are allowed to collect and use our online data, Canadians remain at the mercy of whatever political parties decide to do.

Instead, Canada could follow the European Union’s example by prohibiting the use of data for online microtargeting purposes. We could also adopt a framework for the ethical use of citizens’ online data like the one currently being implemented in the United Kingdom, which would require political parties to obtain voters’ consent before using their data for campaign purposes.

Allowing parties to define their own rules and decide who enforces them leaves far too much open to interpretation and even potential abuse. And under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians should be free to form political thoughts and opinions without interference from those who wield political power.

If we are not able to do so as voting citizens, can we genuinely say that our elections are free and fair? What, then, does this mean for democracy in Canada?

Sophia Melanson Ricciardone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Bill C-4 privacy enhancements are modest and fail to regulate politicians’ use of social bots – https://theconversation.com/bill-c-4-privacy-enhancements-are-modest-and-fail-to-regulate-politicians-use-of-social-bots-264758

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sean Carleton, Associate Professor, Departments of History and Indigenous Studies, University of Manitoba

In May 2021, when the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Nation announced preliminary results of their search for unmarked burials of children at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School (IRS), Canada was forced to reckon with a truth that Survivors had always carried: children were taken, and many never came home.

This difficult truth was already established years earlier, in 2015, by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada’s final report, which confirmed more than 3,200 deaths of children as a result of the IRS system, including 51 at Kamloops.

The Kamloops announcement shook many Canadians and revealed that more children likely died at residential schools in Canada than the TRC reported. This was something the commission anticipated would happen with new research, and additional deaths have now been confirmed by First Nations and police as they have undertaken their own subsequent investigations.

Vigils sprang up across the country. Shoes, toys and teddy bears were placed on the steps of legislatures and churches to remember the children who died at residential schools. For a brief moment, Canada mourned with Indigenous Peoples; the truth of Survivors was acknowledged.

But four years later, residential school denialism — the downplaying and minimizing of residential school facts and the disavowal of the system’s abuse and harm — is on the rise.

As community initiatives and research related to missing children and unmarked burials have persevered and expanded, so too have efforts to diminish and disavow this very work.

---

Read more:
Residential school deaths are significantly higher than previously reported

---

Residential school denialism, as historian Crystal Gail Fraser has outlined, is an attack on truth. It seeks to dismiss the validity of ground searches and recast residential schools as humanitarian and benevolent.

Residential school denialism is not simply an alternate perspective. It is a form of harm that retraumatizes Survivors, undermines truth and perpetuates colonial ideas that jeopardize Canada’s ability to work with Indigenous Peoples to create a stronger future.

Confronting denialism is an ethical and shared responsibility.

The denialist playbook

Residential school denialism follows a pattern familiar from other forms of atrocity denialism. Holocaust denialism, genocide denialism and similar movements employ similar strategies: demand impossible “proof,” discredit Survivor and expert testimony and attack the reputations of researchers.

This can include denialists turning their attention toward those who dare to speak openly: Survivors, Indigenous communities and the experts who support them. What is often framed as “debate” seems more like a campaign of intimidation.

---

Read more:
We fact-checked residential school denialists and debunked their ‘mass grave hoax’ theory

---

Residential school denialism, then, is not just an attack on truth. It also increasingly has many of the hallmarks of an attack on truth-tellers and anyone who is listening.

Denialists often present themselves as “skeptics” or “truth seekers,” cloaking harmful narratives in the language of free speech and rational inquiry. They cast Survivor testimony as unreliable, “emotional” or politically or financially motivated.

In doing so, they promote an alluring colonial narrative that absolves Canada of responsibility. The reach extends beyond Canada: denying the harms and facts of residential schooling is increasingly being used globally to shape international opinion related to the legacies of the British Empire.

At its heart, denialism is not about evidence. It is about power — who gets to tell the story of residential schooling and whose voices are considered trustworthy — and it causes harm along the way.

The human cost

The damage caused by denialism is immediate and personal. Survivors who bravely share their experiences are accused of fabrication.

Kimberly Murray, who serves as special interlocutor for missing children and unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian Residential Schools, received abuse, threats and hate mail.

Via social media and online commentary, people advocating denialist claims have targeted individual university employees.

Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, including ourselves, have seen their names dragged into online forums, their work misrepresented, their credibility attacked.

Cumulatively, efforts that discredit and delegitimize prominent truth-tellers contribute to backlash by creating space — for example, in comment sections or via re-circulating media — for people to voice ignorant views about Indigenous Peoples and perpetuate anti-Indigenous racism.

The cost is not limited to reputation; it is emotional and psychological. It has also resulted in disrespectful physical presence at former IRS sites: Murray reported that at the former Kamloops IRS:

“Denialists entered the site without permission. Some came in the middle of the night, carrying shovels; they said they wanted to ‘see for themselves’ if children are buried there.”

Survivors and Elders, those who should be most honoured, are retraumatized by these attacks on their integrity.

We, among other scholars, calculate the risks of speaking publicly, knowing it may bring harassment. And we know some community leaders for whom it is the same.

Denialism thrives on fear and hate

Residential school denialism has flourished in today’s political and digital climate. The rise of far-right populism, entrenched anti-Indigenous racism and the ecosystem of social media provide fertile ground for dedicated people to flood online spaces with disinformation.

Denialists exploit the deliberate, careful pace of ground searches and archeological work. They portray the absence of immediate excavation results as evidence that nothing is there, and ignore the confirmed deaths from exhumation when they are announced.

Proper archaeological and community-led work takes time. It requires ceremony, consent and cultural respect as multiple Nations work collaboratively to figure out how to honour children who attended schools from various communities. Excavation is not always possible, or even desired. Denialists twist these hard realities into narratives of doubt.

Gaps in education, inconsistent coverage

This manipulation is made easier by gaps in public education, inconsistent media coverage and government hesitancy. Too often, denialist claims circulate unchallenged. In these silences, mis- and disinformation thrives.

Denialism is not an Indigenous problem; confronting it is a Canadian responsibility.

Non-Indigenous Canadians must take an active role: learning the history, correcting misinformation and standing with Survivors and communities as they confront the truth about residential schooling.

Journalists and scholars also have a responsibility to report with care, refusing to legitimize denialist rhetoric under the guise of “balance” and disingenuous “debate.”

Truth and reconciliation cannot survive if the truth is minimized, downplayed or disavowed.

Shared responsibility

Despite these challenges, Indigenous communities continue the work of truth-telling. Survivors share their stories with courage: for example, one has launched a defamation lawsuit.

Communities organize and lead ground searches. Journalists fight to reveal hidden truths about residential school crimes.

Writers and scholars contribute expertise to raise awareness and meet community needs. Each act of testimony, ceremony and research is also an act of resistance against erasure and disavowal.

The children we are searching for, and remembering, deserve nothing less than our courage to confront the truth in an effort to create a better future. This is our shared responsibility.

Sean Carleton receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Benjamin Kucher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Confronting residential schools denialism is an ethical and shared Canadian responsibility – https://theconversation.com/confronting-residential-schools-denialism-is-an-ethical-and-shared-canadian-responsibility-265127

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Luna Vives, Associate Professor of Geography and Migration, Université de Montréal

Over the last decade, European governments have invested heavily to militarize their sea borders and outsource control responsibilities to partners in Africa and the Middle East.

But despite exponentially growing border budgets, people continue to take to the sea to reach EU territory, encountering violence and death. It’s time to admit that this repressive strategy has failed and to ask what should come next.

In late 2013, shortly after the Lampedusa shipwrecks off the coast of Italy that claimed more than 400 lives, the Italian government deployed Operation Mare Nostrum in the central Mediterranean. More than 150,000 people were rescued in the following 12 months.

But with a monthly cost of nine million euros, the operation was deemed economically unsustainable.

A year later, in November 2015, Frontex (the EU’s Border and Coast Guard) deployed Operation Triton to replace Mare Nostrum. The shift in names reflected a parallel shift in logic. Mare Nostrum (“our sea” in Latin, a nod to its role in sustaining life and bringing people together) was designed as a search-and-rescue mission. Meanwhile, Operation Triton (named after the mighty Greek god) focused on dismantling smuggling networks.

Turning point

The operation marked a turning point in the EU’s approach to migration control at sea. Frontex’s legitimacy, mandate and resources expanded dramatically post-2015. At the same time, European governments ramped up militarization and accelerated the delegation of border control to countries of departure.

In the central Mediterranean, Italy transferred 270 million euros to Libya’s ruling elites by 2021, mainly to bolster the country’s capacity to intercept migrant boats — often detected by Frontex drones surveilling the disputed Libyan rescue zone.

Meanwhile, the EU allocated 465 million euros from its Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (also created in 2015) to bolster migration and border control efforts by the Libyan government.

To this day, those “rescued” by Libyan forces are put in EU-funded detention centres where abuses are well documented and African migrants are allegedly sold as slaves.

Leaving migrants adrift

To the east, the EU agreed to pay Turkey nine billion euros between 2016 and 2023 to prevent people from Syria, Afghanistan and other war-torn countries from crossing into Greece in search of safety.

Boats crowded with entire families were — and are, to this day — pushed back to Turkey or left adrift under the very eyes of Frontex.

The same tactics soon spread westward. In 2019, Spain and the EU transferred more than 460 million euros to Morocco, plus additional funds for training and assets. Much of these transfers were, again, earmarked to develop the country’s capacity to patrol the seas and intercept migrant boats. More recently, the EU and Spain reached similar agreements with Mauritania worth over 500 million euros.

Drastic cuts to public spending have become mainstream in the EU, yet governments do not hesitate to foot hefty bills for border enforcement. Frontex’s projected budget for the 2021-2027 period is a whopping 11 billion euros. Additionally, an unknown amount is allocated to contracts with private companies that provide border technology.

The European Commission has proposed tripling this level of investment for its 2028-2034 Migration, Borders and Security initiative for a total investment of 81 billion euros.

Deaths at sea on the rise

All evidence suggests that these investments over the course of the last decade have failed to result in a safer sea or a more secure border.

The main objective of post-2015 maritime border policy was to dismantle criminal networks and prevent drownings. Instead, it has pushed people into the hands of professional smugglers, who have seen their profits soar as they exploit the lives of people on the move. Death has increased as a direct result of externalization.

The EU’s efforts to manage maritime migration also sought to stop illegal border crossings. Yet safe and legal pathways to the EU remain extremely scarce. People fleeing persecution who have the right to seek international protection and workers responding to the labour demands of an aging Europe continue to leave their communities in search of a hope only the sea offers.

Deaths at sea, violence against migrants and government investment are increasing simultaneously along the EU’s external maritime border. Over the last decade, the Mediterranean has become not only a graveyard, but also a bottomless money pit.

Looking ahead

What are the options? The most obvious is to create a functioning system for the selection and recruitment of workers and refugees at origin.

There is also room for more ambitious programs: a recent study found that most people in the EU would favour large-scale regularization for people without status already in the territory.

The United Nations-endorsed Global Compact for Migration designed to improve co-operation on global migration issues offers an even more daring road map for a strategy that taps into the potential of government-managed mobility.

There are many possibilities. Whatever the choice, once thing is clear: militarization and delegation of border control are not only expensive but also ineffective.

Luna Vives receives funding from SSHRC.

– ref. The Mediterranean: Both a graveyard and a bottomless money pit due to EU border policies – https://theconversation.com/the-mediterranean-both-a-graveyard-and-a-bottomless-money-pit-due-to-eu-border-policies-264756