Every public issue has two or more sides or viewpoints. Often, however, one side dominates and not always for good reasons. Ideology plays a big role, and the public narrative gets taken over by the loudest voice, whether or not the evidence and logic support that position. There are many issues in the news or floating around the Canadian context where one side has effectively been silenced by political correctness, the cancel culture, the supposed consensus, or other public power plays and pressures. In many cases, the other side needs to be heard, if only to balance the discussion and clarify the issue so that wise decisions can be made.
I often find myself taking the minority perspective on public issues, sometimes at my peril. As a result, I cast myself as a contrarian. But rather than just being a curmudgeon against popular views, I feel that my views have quite reasonable arguments in their favour, which are often ignored, denied, dismissed, or insulted by those latched onto the official viewpoints and narratives. I have written about some of these topics earlier, so will not repeat myself: evolution theory and Intelligent Design, global warming and climate change, atheism and scientism, capital punishment, the "gender gap" in engineering, the mainstream media, renewable green energy, and residential schools. Taken together, those posts should serve as my contrarian credentials regarding political issues and modern society!
But there are many other subject areas! The following are a few other issues on which I hold what may seem to be unpopular opinions. You may or may not agree with me, but reading the views of the other side is always a useful exercise toward better understanding. And in any case, surely I have the right to express my own views on my own blog without risking attack and cancellation? In no particular order then, here are some further contrarian positions explained briefly:
The Origin of Life:
The official status of OOL research is that science is making progress toward understanding the basis for life: the physics and chemistry, and biological processes involved. Multiple possibilities for how life got going on planet Earth have been proposed or are being actively investigated. Science publications hype up every supposed 'breakthrough' and will tell you that progress is being made and soon they will have a good idea about how life arose on planet Earth, and will be able to reproduce it in the lab.
What they do not tell you is that most of the true 'progress' so far has been in finding out how many ways undirected, natural abiogenesis is impossibly difficult. Most reports on 'progress' are hypothetical theoretical looks at one aspect or other of the early Earth, of simple organic-chemistry building blocks, or other incidental aspects of the big picture - mostly just hand-waving speculation. Indeed, there has been no real progress toward creating life by credible processes using materials available on the early Earth.
Some of the road blocks to true progress in this subject include: the chemical makeup of prebiotic Earth; the hard chemistry of forming suitable carbohydrates, lipids, amino-acids, and other necessary biological molecules; the total lack of homo-chirality (only left or right-handed molecules), which is needed for life; the natural unwanted reactions and thermodynamics that work against biochemistry outside of cells; the difficulty of properly linking simple chemicals into the polypeptides and nucleic acid strings essential to all life; and of course, the total lack of any process to provide the vast amount of genetic information required for even the simplest protein, much less an credible protocell's DNA or RNA. None of these hurdles has been overcome in any credible lab research.
James Tour has done a huge service to explain these roadblocks, as well as to reveal and derail the biochemistry of pretentious OOL research in a series of YouTube talks. Another set of OOL refutations can be found here [?]. The bottom line is that science is farther away than ever from finding out how life could really have begun by natural means on our planet. Their search for spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) has come up short by several orders of magnitude.
Abortion:
This was probably the original issue in the ongoing and ever-expanding culture wars! It has been in the news a lot recently, especially in the USA with the SCOTUS Dobbs decision, so of course, it has to be on my list here. The issue is polarized into two opposite positions: Pro-choice argues for women's "reproductive rights" and unencumbered access to abortion through the entire nine months of pregnancy, while the pro-life side argues for the rights and life of the unborn child from the moment of conception. Many people fall into one of these camps, but a sizable group - perhaps ebven the majority, properly understood - would like to see some resolution between these two extremes.
The pro-choice side - essentially demanding autonomy for women mostly for reasons of convenience - is pushed by feminists and numerous "progressives" with full support in the media, governments, medical establishment, universities and most other institutions. They dominate Canadian politics and public discussion. Meanwhile, biological science, long-standing morality, most religions and, many would argue, responsibility and decency, largely support the pro-life side. As a true contrarian, I have leaned toward the pro-life side for decades, but recently have shifted away from the conception end of the nine months of pregnancy. Thus, I disagree with both extreme positions.
Some time ago, I wrote a small book on the subject, Finding the Balance, which takes a scientific and logically reasoned look at the issue and comes up with an objective, quantitative way to balance the rights of the pregnant woman against those of her developing child in a fair and defendable manner. I won't divulge the results here; the book is available at a the lowest possible price on Amazon as a readable Kindle publication. See also my earlier post about the book.
Systemic Racism:
This topic exploded with the Black Lives Matter movement a few years ago. While no one claims there is no racism in North America, advocates of 'systemic racism' have gone to extremes to make everything about racism: microaggressions in every conversation, implicit racism in every public statement and public institution, violent uprisings in several cities, demonizing all whites as racists, even calling out math, logic and science as inherently racist. This focus on racism has just made the problem exponentially worse in many people's minds, by polarizing society and identifying everyone first and formost by the shade of brown on their skin. Martin Luther King's progress against true racism has now been derailed by extreme ideological positioning.
In reality, and until 'systemic racism' became a thing, there was probably less racism in North America than at any previous time. Yes, there were long-standing statistical inequalities, and some subtle racist effects in society, as well as the usual outright bigotry from the few bozos, but overt racism had been on the decline for decades. Here in Canada, true racism was very rare, in my biased opinion. Such as existed was probably felt more by our First Nations peoples than by Blacks, Asians, or other visible minorities. However, with the claims of 'systemic racism' that situation has morphed into ideology, identity politics, and virtue signalling, driven by narrowly-focused social-justice warriors pushing their own agendas.
By various definitions of both words, you may claim 'systemic racism' exists, but it is pretty low level and hard to pin down in ways acceptable to most. From reports of overt racial discrimination elsewhere in the world, racism seems less of a concern here. Yet we now have newly racist policies to preferentially hire and seek out certain people based primarily on skin colour. Universities have racially designated processes, employers actively seek more visible minorities, whites are disrespected in some situations, and treatment is purposely different depending on one's race. While these changes claim to counteract past racist tendencies, they cannot help but be seen as codifying a different sort of stark racism.
Societal equality will never be reached (even if that is a meaningful goal) by forced inequality. Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) seem like good goals at first, but those ends do not justify the means being employed and will probably end up making the inequalities worse. So let's please back away from the 'systemic racism' trope and focus on true equality and fairness for all before the law, and in every institution, just as Martin Luther King and his followers wanted.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide:
This issue has been growing for a long time; another campaign by 'progressive' groups pushing the ultra-libertarian perspective of personal autonomy. Preceded by several European countries, Canada softened its position against assisted suicide a few years ago, pushed on by left-leaning courts and the mainstream media. The argument has always been that people in extreme pain from terminal diseases, with no hope of relief should be allowed to end their lives, and if necessary, to receive 'help' in doing so from willing medical professionals.
Such was the theory and there may be some moral and reasonable merit to that argument. However, that was just the starting point. Anti-euthanasia groups have warned all along about the "slippery slope" of assisted suicide, and time has proven them right. In Canada, it has not taken long for the law to be relaxed and amended to allow more and more cases of what is now referred to as "medical aid in dying" or MAID. The law now allows more people to be killed at their own request, from the disabled and mentally ill, to the depressed, to people just lonely or unhappy with their lives. And now there is pressure to extend MAID to sick children and even disabled new-borns, as if they can give informed consent to being killed.
The slope has indeed been slippery as we approach the moral nadir of allowing almost anyone at all to ask to be killed. Not only does this go against centuries of moral and religious discouragement, medical ethics, and legal tradition, but it opens the gates for widespread abuse, notwithstanding the rules that are supposedly in place to prevent that - rules that often get bent or ignored as soon as they are signed into law. We how have hospitals suggesting MAID to patients who are expensive to care for, and to veterans of wars facing PTSD, as well as seniors who have lost their spouse, or people who cannot find suitable accommodations for managing their disability. Indeed, one of the arguments for expanding MAID is the savings in health-care costs that come from killing the patient!
Then there are the seniors who feel, often under subtle family or societal pressure, that they should just get out of the way, or that their life is meaningless now. When MAID is easy, this option will be taken more often, or even become normal or expected. Inevitably, however, mistakes are made, which of course, cannot be corrected after the fact. Moreover, some jurisdictions now require doctors and others to participate in MAID despite their personal ethical values against it, thereby undermining their freedom of conscience. On one hand, our society gets upset about drug overdoses and suicide attempts by young people, setting up hotlines and education for susceptible youth. Yet on the other we have now turned around and offer MAID to other people, including soon, some of those same youth.
In my opinion, MAID was wrong from the outset. There are ways for doctors to sedate patients in severe pain, and if that leaves them unconscious or even hastens their passing, no real harm has been done. There is no need to kill people, even if that is what they supposedly want. Proper medical support and counselling usually improve people's quality of life so that they no longer wish to die, but you cannot give them that after they have been killed!
Darwinian Evolution:
Once life on Earth began, by whatever means, it is almost universally assumed that Darwin's theory of common descent, random variation and natural selection, fully accounts for the complexity and diversity of life we find around us today, as well as for the fossil record of extinctions and new species through the past billion years or more. The "neo-Darwinian synthesis", has been updated from Darwin's time to include genetics and other biological advances, and is the now the standard explanation in textbooks, science publications, and most media presentations.
Yet this monolithic perspective on "origin of the species" is, to put it bluntly, far from the truth. While the Darwinian mechanism can explain minor shifts and adaptations in populations over time (like Darwin's famous finches), and simple mutational changes ("microevolution" such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria), it cannot explain major changes, new genetic information, and novel features in the creation of new and different species over time ("macroevolution" at the phylum, class, order and family levels). All attempts to apply the Darwinian mechanism analytically have come up short in terms of probabilities, credible processes, the available time, and the fossil record, which shows very few truly intermediate forms with gradual changes.
The limitations of Darwinian evolution theory have been discussed and presented at considerable length for several decades now, and more and more evidence is accumulating showing the impossibility of new genetic code, new features in plants and animals, and any new families of organisms coming about through naturalistic Darwinian means. I have written about this in previous posts, (and here) and there is a wide range of material referenced there for those who wish to look into this subject. Sooner or later, the biological mainstream will shift away from Darwin's theory and be forced to look at alternatives.
Transgenderism:
If adults want to dress up and act like the opposite sex, that is their prerogative. If they do that well and can pass for the opposite sex in public, then let them do so and the public need not be any wiser. If they go further and seek drugs and surgery - at their own expense - to make them more like the sex they want to be, I will not stand in their way, but please don't ask me to knowingly affirm and encourage their gender dysphoria.
Unfortunately, here too, we now have a very one-sided narrative in the media and society at large, causing much confusion, disrupting societal norms, spreading public bewilderment, and even destroying more than a few children's lives. All manner of institutions have jumped on the 'trans' bandwagon for fear they will not be seen as sufficiently woke. People are being forced to use ungrammatical pronouns; men claiming to be women are gaining access into women's change rooms, sports programs, and even jails, with predictably disastrous results. Counsellors and even parents are legally prevented from advising mentally troubled youth and children against "transitioning". Children are being encouraged to doubt who they are, take hormone treatments and undergo mutilating surgery, only to become even more troubled, as well as permanently sterile and unhealthy. Any voices speaking against this seeming insanity are silenced or cancelled without being heard.
Transgenderism for children is unscientific and should be called child abuse in my opinion. It is based on a one-sided narrative pushed by special interests and the ever-eager media. Fortunately, some jurisdictions have begun to backtrack on blanket acceptance of transgender ideology, having woken up to its dangers and disastrous results for many. Alas, Canada has not yet seen reason in this area and presses ahead with laws and policies, school curricula and employee training, institutional pandering and media celebration, all in 'support' of anything LGBT, and especially 'trans'. Meanwhile, those of us wanting to hold onto sanity are judged, condemned and usually silence ourselves out of fear, or for lack of public places to turn to. We wonder how and when this departure from reality will end.
Israel vs. Palestine:
From a western, democratic perspective, this issue should be a slam dunk: one small country, the only open and stable democracy in the region, is surrounded by dysfunctional, backward, tyrannical countries that want to destroy it. Do you side with the democracy or their enemies? Founded after holocaust, Israel defends itself effectively and by necessity against attacks from three sides, and hateful diatribe from many other nations who should know better. Support for Israel should be a social justice cause, but it is not. Instead, the left and progressives in general support Hamas and Hezbollah, recognized terrorist groups who continual threaten Israel, unwilling to negotiate in good faith, while unable to support their own people, giving them fewer human rights, unstable governments, conditions of poverty despite ongoing international aid and nearby oil wealth.
Yes, Israel is sometimes guilty of bad behaviour, including heavy retaliation for armed attacks, and building Jewish settlements on land claimed by Palestinians. But they also provide for Palestinians within their borders, allow them to live, work and vote peacefully, and even to serve in the government. Meanwhile, surrounding countries do not want the Palestinians in their lands and provide little actual support to them. (Such is my understanding from my limited exposure to Middle-East political reality.) I may be wrong in siding with Israel for the most part, but I do not understand those who side with Palestinians to the point of demonstrating on campus, denouncing Israel, or demanding that nations and corporations stop dealing with Israel.
Okay, that's enough for now!
This, of course, is just a brief and partial collection. Any one of these topics deserves a full blog post (or even a book?) and perhaps I'll expand on a few of them later, or just add a few more briefs here. There are other subjects I could expound on, such as feminism, other LGBT aspects, additional woke causes, and a few more technical/scientific subject areas, but the above entries will have to suffice for now. They will certainly serve for many to pigeonhole me, without thinking, as a "far right monster", or something similar, but I prefer to be a 'contrarian' and a very reasonable one at that!
On many of these topics there are, of course, grey in-between positions, and perhaps I myself do not entirely hold the views outlined above. Is it also possible that you, if you've read this far and have studied these issues, may hold some of the same views yourself, at least in part? Indeed, it is my secret hope that many, perhaps even most reasonable people secretly hold some version of these same opinions; that the world has not gone completely crazy and that sanity may one day again prevail, at least on some issues.
