Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for September 19, 2017

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Once you get the prime minister explain how that will make the middle class better off.

VOICE 2: Will the Minister of Finance come down to earth with the rest of us mortals and actually listen to what is going on.

[Sound: Cheering]

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: The fight over pending tax changes returned to the House of Commons yesterday but the real debate is taking place away from the politicians and among other Canadians many of whom are on differing sides believe they are misunderstood. Case in point Canadian doctors highly skilled, paid through a public system, and yet mostly self-employed. Today we've asked two doctors with very different views to weigh in. One opposed to the tax changes the government wants, the other in support. Hear them in just a moment. Also today what happens when a journalist used to keeping herself out of the story realizes her reporting has put an entire family in danger? For the CBC's Carol off it would be life changing.

SOUNDCLIP

I am a pretty orthodox journalist in the way of, you know, how you keep your distance. You have to be impartial. And yet I came to love these people, as though they were mine.

AMT: Her efforts to help one Afghan family escape the wrath of a warlord and come to Canada would drag on for nine long years. In half an hour Carol off and Robina Aryubwal, one member of that family, join me with their story. And our project adaptation is in the weeds today with a biologist who argues that many plant and animal species are thriving and adapting to human created change.

SOUNDCLIP

We should see these gains for what they are; genuine positive biological story, rather than try to knuckle all of these new comers down as though they're somehow irritants that we would prefer didn't exist.

AMT: Chris Thomas explains how some nature is thriving in an age of extinction. That's in an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is the current.

Back To Top »

Open letter signed by 300 doctors supports federal government tax changes

Guests: Ritika Goel, Brenna Velker

SOUNDCLIP

Honorable Leader of the Opposition.

[Chatter]

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Mr. Speaker nobody in the last elections asked the Liberal Party to attack job creators.

[Applause]

ANDREW SCHEER: We have already established that this isn't fair and we know that it's not compassionate. So why is the prime minister doing this? Because he's drowning in debt and a drowning man will reach out and grab on to anything and not care who he drags down with him, and who is he taking down with him? Young Canadians looking for their first job, new Canadians looking to share in the prosperity in Canada and women entrepreneurs were hit disproportionately harder with these new tax…

[Chatter]

Your right Honorable Prime Minister.

[Applause]

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: [Unintelligible] and indeed the entire opposition has been going around the country telling every doctor they meet that they stand with them, that they will defend their rights to pay lower taxes than the nurses who walk alongside those doctors. We don't think that's fair, but if the members opposite do want to stand with wealthy doctors, will they commit, right now, to restore the system of tax breaks for wealthy individuals after we make the changes that Canadians expect us to do?

AMT: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responding to opposition leader Andrew Scheer in question period yesterday. The government may be hoping that charging the conservatives are aligning with wealthy doctors quote unquote “will hurt the opposition”. But the Trudeau liberals have been facing a surge of resistance ever since they proposed changes to the tax system in July. One of the changes the government wants would have those who set up private corporations, including doctors who incorporate their practices, pay more tax. A number of doctors groups including the Canadian Medical Association have come out against those proposed changes. But this week 300 doctors signed an open letter to Finance Minister Bill Morneau, expressing their support for the new tax plan. We will hear from both sides of that debate. Dr. Ritika Goel,is a family doctor who works at three community based clinics. She's in our Toronto studio. Dr. Brenna Velker, is a family doctor who runs her own practice in London, Ontario. Hello welcome to you both.

BRENNA VELKER: Thank you.

RITIKA GOEL: Hi Anna Maria.

AMT: I think Brenna Velker, I will start with you. What troubles you about the proposed tax changes?

BRENNA VELKER: Well I want to start off by saying I read Dr. Gold’s letter and I think fundamentally I don't really disagree with it. The part that troubles me is the lack of data that the government is providing. The lack of information about how these changes are actually going to lead to the kinds of improvements in health care that we all want to see.

AMT: Okay, so and so it's the lack of data not the actual change to the tax rate for those who incorporate?

BRENNA VELKER: No I think that, as physicians you know, we all understand that those who make more money need to pay more tax, that just how our society works. The problem that I think a lot of us are running into is that we're feeling really beat down. We're feeling really targeted and we're being told just give us more money and don't worry we'll take care of it. And that's a really difficult thing to trust.

AMT: Well I'm going to pick up on that in a minute but, Ritika Goel, you signed that open letter to Bill Morneau. What was the gist of that letter?

RITIKA GOEL: So there's more than 300 physicians across Canada that have signed a letter saying that we believe in fairness and an equitable tax system. Kou know physicians are self-employed often without benefits, without pensions, with large amounts of student debt, long years in training etc. But we are also among the 1 to 5% of income earners, and we feel that the particular tax changes that are being proposed to be changed are those that are specifically only available to certain family structures and to the Most High income earners. They're also not available to Canadians with the same incomes and in fact not even equitably available within physicians. So for example if you have a single mother who is a physician she would be paying a higher tax rate than a mother with a spouse that she's able to income sprinkle to and we don't believe that that's fair.

AMT: Okay. And let me just ask Brenna Velker are you incorporated?

BRENNA VELKER: I am. Yes.

AMT: What kind of workload do you carry?

BRENNA VELKER: Hours are patients or…?

AMT: Whole thing.

BRENNA VELKER: So, I work I have a family practice that I run. I am a relatively new physician. I'm building my roster. But I have about 700 patients in my practice. Then I do my skin clinics. So once a week I do biopsies and things like that for skin cancer. I work probably five six and sometimes seven days a week. Most of the time from 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 or 7:00 at night and then I come home and see my kids and talk to my husband for a few minutes and then go back to doing paperwork until I fall asleep.

AMT: Okay. Do you think you're adequately compensated for that that workload?

BRENNA VELKER: For the only time that physicians are compensated, in my case structure, is when I see patients. So any of the forms that I fill out any of the phone calls that I make or you know e-mails or anything like that any other communication with my patients is unpaid. So do I feel like I'm compensated adequately? I think it would be quite greedy of me to say that I don't feel that I'm compensated. I think that you know I make enough to do what I need to do. But the problem is that there's so much debt unpaid and then being told actually you're not doing enough for the money that you're making. You know it really leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

AMT: Okay. Ritika Goel are you incorporated?

RITIKA GOEL: So I want to start off by saying that the physicians who signed the letter are in various different payment models. So we have people who are incorporated who are not people who are salaried, who are fee for service like Brenna who are in capitation models etc. I'm personally not incorporated, but I think it's important to realize that I could choose to incorporate if I wanted to. I've chosen not to because we are well compensated enough that I feel I'm able to fund the maternity leave that I'm actually currently on. With support from the Ontario government, in Ontario we do get access to 17 weeks of maternity leave that I've accessed. And I believe that I'm able to save for retirement and that incorporation is not necessary for those changes, for those benefits. And in fact 40 percent of physicians are not incorporated across Canada.

AMT: Just ask a little over a few more details though. You work for three community clinics. What does your workload like? And how does that differ from someone like Dr. Velker who has her own practice?

RITIKA GOEL: So there are many different payment models in Ontario. So I'm paid through different mechanisms that allow me to work with a more marginalized population. So I work with people living in poverty, people experiencing homelessness etc. So I'm generally paid in a way that allows me to see those patients. So the complexity of the work is taken into account. Certainly the type of model that Brenna is paid in is in itself incentivizing and dis-incentivizing certain types of care. And I do think that a conversation that we need to be having is one around payment reform. There have been many of my colleagues that have said perhaps we should be looking at being salaried employees that are able to access benefits and are able to access pensions. Maybe that would address some of the concerns that have been raised and partly what we raise. And partly what we raise in our letter is that we should be addressing the issues being raised through the correct mechanisms. So during our provincial negotiations we should be talking about parental leave and pensions. We should also be talking about decreasing that medical school tuition or debt forgiveness that's leading physicians into the situation they're in. But we don't think that inequitable tax mechanisms are the way to deal with those issues.

AMT: And are you salaried or are you fee for service or are you a combination of something?

RITIKA GOEL: I'm paid a combination of salary and alternate payment plan. So those take into account the type of patients that I work with. But again we have people who are fee for service that are incorporated that have their own practices in various practice models that have signed this letter, because we all agree that we need to be paying our fair share to fund the health care system we work in.

AMT: BrennaVelker, you wanted to say something go ahead.

BRENNA VELKER: Yes. So yeah I guess my question and I just wanted to point out that Dr. Goel is actually partially a salaried employee. And so Dr. Goel, you have to correct me if I'm wrong, but are there any you know benefits or things like that to go along with your position?

RITIKA GOEL: So I've very recently have joined a salaried position so. So for example I'm currently on maternity leave and not accessing any benefits through my employer because of how cecently I joined that practice. However I will say having recently joined a salaried practice that I think it is very helpful to have access to benefits, you know, such as parental leave benefits, if I was able to access them. But I'm but I'm not currently. That's exactly why our letter called for a conversation on how physicians can access all of these benefits because it's not differential access that I think is really causing concerns and is leading to people feeling stressed and feeling that high level of burnout. I mean I'm hearing the way that Brenna practices and I think the fee for service system certainly puts physicians in a position where they feel like they're on a treadmill. I think we should be looking at payment reform for that model. What do you think of that Brenna Velker?

BRENNA VELKER: I absolutely agree though. There are a number of community health centers in London and unfortunately there really aren't enough. So I deal with the same population. I think that Dr. Goel deal with, except my composition model is significantly different. So I don't have the opportunity to spend well. Financially I'm not incentivized to spend long periods of time with my patients. I do because that's what they need. But in in a salaried model it would give me more opportunity to do that without feeling like I have to get through these patients in order to pay my mortgage.

AMT: So in other words the model that you work with now, Brenna Velker, would not be your first choice?

BRENNA VELKER: Oh no absolutely not. But the Ontario government has made it such that it is fairly difficult to get into the model that promote more comprehensive care as opposed to just high volume.

AMT: It's interesting because, Dr. Goel, part of the letter that that you have signed talks about the student debt, the burnout, the long training hours, the years spent in training that need to be dealt with but maybe not through the debate we're having today.

RITIKA GOEL: Exactly. So the tax changes are for very specific mechanisms so they would take away the ability to sprinkle income to spouses and children that are not actually working in your practice. So if you have a spouse that's doing your bookkeeping you would continue to be able to pay them a salary if the tax changes go through. The point is to not be able to give income sprinkling mechanisms to certain physicians with certain family structures but not other physicians. It would also look at taking away passive investment income which basically allows those who can incorporate to pay lower tax rates than those who can't incorporate of the same income. So this is really about creating more equity within the tax system. And those issues that are being raised by our physician colleagues absolutely should be addressed just not through the tax system.

AMT: And Brenna Velker, how do you view that portion of the letter?

BRENNA VELKER: I just I'm unclear about what you mean by physicians who can't incorporate. So my understanding is that anybody could incorporate. It's just whether it's financially advantageous for you to do that or not.

RITIKA GOEL: Correct. So what I mean is physicians with certain family structure. So for example I have a colleague who is a single mother. As a single mother physician she arguably has a more difficult time but because she doesn't have a spouse who has a lower income and she doesn't have an adult child, she would actually be paying a higher tax rate than a physician mom who has a spouse with no income or with a low income. So it's about who is able to take advantage and around passive investment income. This is really only advantageous for physicians who make a certain amount. That's really beyond the ability to contribute to certain tax saving mechanisms like RRSPs and TFSAs that are available to all Canadians. And you know we are arguing that physicians should be using the same tax saving mechanisms as all Canadians and not accessing something that allows us to pay a lower tax rate than someone else with a similar income.

AMT: Brenna Velker.

BRENNA VELKER: Again I don't disagree. I see your point. I think the point that myself and a lot of other physicians are making is yes all of this sounds great, in theory. How is that going to work in practice? So in order for a lot of clinics to transition you know from going from a 15% tax rate, which physicians get in their corporation, to a 50% tax rate, there's going to be some changes that have to happen in their practices. And I don't think that anybody has really gone through to think about what that means for health care, what that means for our population. For many physicians that I know if this goes through they're going to have to cut back on their hours, because there's just no advantage to working more. There's no incentive to work more if you're taxed at such a high rate.

AMT: Can I clarify one of Velker - You say to go from 15% to 50. There would still would be things that if you're incorporated that you can claim, that that allow you to lower your tax rate, your tax burden, are there not, if you're incorporated? It's these specific things, the Sprinkling.

BRENNA VELKER: There are. But there are a lot of - like those specific things, and again I am not an accountant. I don't know the specifics of the tax code and how these things are going to really impact each individual physician. But what I do know is that the overall sentiment that most physicians are feeling is we were given the right to incorporate these benefits in order to offset the fact that we don't have access to a lot of the things that Canadians who are employed through other companies have access to. And so we were given these in lieu of a fee increase. And so now we're being told actually what you're doing isn't right, despite the fact that this was something that was offered to us. And I'd also like to point out that when this was offered to us, many organizations like the OMA and the CMA worked with the government in order to put out information for physicians about how to take advantage of these tax changes.

AMT: So you were encouraged in other words.

BRENNA VELKER: We were encouraged to do this. This is not something that we lobbied for. This is not something that we have done kind of in secret. This is something that was given to us in lieu of other things that other Canadians have access to.

AMT: Well let me ask you then how this has become a very fraught discussion. You two are being very polite to each other. But do you have concerns about how you've been characterized as a doctor who incorporates, Brenna Velker.

BRENNA VELKER: Oh absolutely.

AMT: What are you hearing that?

BRENNA VELKER: I almost feel like I'm doing something that's illegal, that I'm doing something that makes me or that I'm doing something that's wrong and that's taking money out of the pocket of my patient population who are, you know, below the poverty line probably, which is - if anybody who knows me - which is you know not true at all.

AMT: Ritika Goel, how have you been greeted after signing this letter? What is the reaction?

RITIKA GOEL: Well we certainly also feel that the government's rhetoric has been very unhelpful. You know physicians have been using legal mechanisms that are available to them as have other small businesses that are incorporated. So you know we feel that there's definitely a piece of this that is about politics. And that's why we also call on the government to look at broader comprehensive tax reform. You know we should be looking at the CEO's stock options that was talked about in the campaign. We should be talking about perhaps having a higher corporate tax rate that wouldn't have led us to the situation where incorporation is so attractive. To address Brenna's point, that the province gave us the right to incorporate, it's true that we were given incorporation through provincial negotiations but that was also just over 10 years ago. We shouldn't be surprised that the provinces giving us access to something that's really under federal jurisdiction. So when we are negotiating we should take that into account and we shouldn't be surprised if the federal government decides to change their tax code.

AMT: Are you facing any backlash for signing that letter?

RITIKA GOEL: Absolutely. I've had many physicians, many trainees contact me and say that they have felt uncomfortable expressing these opinions publicly, particularly trainees are concerned about their supervisors.

AMT: So many people have expressed opinions like yours.

RITIKA GOEL: Absolutely so. Our profession has been very openly opposed to these changes in a very blanket manner. And so those of us who feel that in fact we should perhaps be looking at more fairness in the tax system and that might mean looking at the way that we are paid, feel quite uncomfortable feel quite attacked. And many people have chosen not to even sign our letter, because they're worried about how they will be perceived by their colleagues.

AMT: Why did you sign?

RITIKA GOEL: I signed because I think it's important for us to hear both sides. I think there have been so many physicians that are feeling uncomfortable by the way that our professional associations are representing the issue. And in fact feel that it's fine for us to remove certain tax mechanisms that are inequitably available to certain physicians. This isn't about taking away the right to incorporate. We will continue to be among the top 1 to 5% of income earners. But these are specific mechanisms that I can see are in fact inequitable and should be removed.

AMT: And the Canadian Medical Association and the Ontario Medical Association have come out against these changes. Do you feel that they are not representing then one portion of the of their members?

RITIKA GOEL: Definitely the rhetoric from the Ontario Medical Association and Canadian Medical Association has been extremely one sided. And I would also argue that in some time it has been accurate in its portrayal at times. So there has been a lot of conversation about for example this being a feminist issue or this being about access to parental leave. That leaves out certain pieces in the conversation. I think access to income sprinkling while it is helpful for physician mothers it probably disproportionately benefits male physicians who are in a traditional family structure, and probably disproportionately the passive investment income benefits highest the highest income earners among physicians that are also disproportionately male.

AMT: We are out of time. We have to leave it there. I appreciate both of you talking about this. It's interesting to hear that this is a more nuanced for both of you. Thank you.

BRENNA VELKER: No problem. Thanks.

AMT: That's Dr. Brenna Velker, family doctor, runs her own practice in London, Ontario Dr.Ritika Goal is a family doctor she is in Toronto. The CBC News is next and then:

SOUNDCLIP

Everything I felt that moment he was passing through to me and I would just say to him it's ok now. Your home.

AMT: The CBC's Carol Off with her own story of a journalist who helps rescue a family she put in danger, reporting in Afghanistan. And the computer will kick us out 11 seconds from now. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current. The news is next. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

'Decades of grief': Carol Off's long journey to save Afghan man who risked his life to talk to her

Guest: Carol Off, Robina Aryubwal

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. And you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come rolling out the red carpet for the Asian carp and other invasive species. But first As It Happen’s host Carol Off on her journey into the lives of others.

SOUNDCLIP

CAROL OFF: Everyone calls him the General, but Asad Aryubwal has quit the army and never wants to fight again. He commanded the division under one of the country's most brutal warlords, Rashid Dostum. He remembers the Red Army was ruthless but the ugliest wars against his fellow Afghans. The General is only thirty eight years old. His face and experiences are way beyond his age.

ASAD ARYUBWAL: [Translated] When the Russians entered an area they would destroy the whole village, children, elders, innocent or guilty people. Dostum’s forces would do the same thing. There was always looting and killing. They would consolidate power this way. People were scared and tried to flee but they would be shot. I was watching my country be destroyed and I was not able to do anything.

AMT: Well that's a clip from Carol Off award winning 2002 documentary In the Company of Warlords. The film exposed how warlords in Afghanistan were working with American and NATO forces fighting against the Taliban. And it was through her work on that documentary that Carol Off met Asad Aryubwal, the man she calls the general, and his family. Asad are ball had been drawn against his will into the army of one warlord, Abdul Rashid Dostum. And he talked candidly to Carol off about Dostum brutality, when few others were willing to talk about it. Both thought that the end of that interview would be the end of their connection. But it turned out only to be the beginning of a long struggle to get Asad Aryubwal and his family to safety. Carol Off is of course the host of CBC Radio's As It Happens. She's also the author of the new book All We Leave Behind: A Reporter's Journey into the Lives of Others. And Robina Aryubwal is Asad Aryubwal’s eldest daughter. They're both with us in our Toronto studio hello.

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Hello.

CAROL OFF: Hello Annamaria.

AMT: Robina I want to start with you. You grew up in Afghanistan at a very volatile time. When you were 10 years old during the Taliban's take over the country, you had to flee on foot with your family to Pakistan. Can you tell us what that was like for a little girl?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Yes it was a miserable experience because like we had to walk for nine hours and there's the rain. So I was with my mom and my siblings and my uncle's family. I was walking with my grandmother she couldn't walk properly. I said I should be with her. We didn't want to lose her. So it was you know kind of very hard you know to keep up with every member of the family. We lost our brother. There was a stranger man you saw like my mother was in trouble. So, he said he's going to help my mother and she will take my brother and he will take us to somewhere safe.

AMT : How old was your brother at the time?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: He was very small maybe was two years old. He couldn't walk. And then we lost our brother and cousin my mother was crying saying: “ Oh my gosh I don't know we have lost your brother.” And then at one point there was a checkpoint that my mother found my brother with my cousin and the man was waiting for my mother.

AMT: So he took your brother and carried him but he didn't take him away. He actually was helping.

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: No no. We were kind of scared. They seemed very nice. We had no choice.

AMT: You were walking through the rain. What was the land like?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: The land was sometimes… We were getting like at the top of the mountain like it was crazy. It was such a horrible place. And when I remembered that place it's going: “Oh my gosh how we made it.”

AMT: And you were just 10 of the time. So what was going through your head as you were doing this route?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Actually at that time I was only thinking we should make safely from here. And I was like even 10 years old but I was really trying to help my grandmother. And I was making sure like every family members together. You know, it made as kind of strong in a point but it was such a bad experience.

AMT: How many siblings do you have?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: I have four siblings; two brothers, two sisters and I'm the oldest.

AMT: Okay, Carol you write that Asad Aryubwal had been forced to leave his country three times by the time he was 40 years old. The fourth and last time you write was because of you.

CAROL OFF: Yes.

AMT: Why?

AMT: Well the escape that Robina is talking about is because of the Taliban after 9/11, when the United States led its forces its invasion of Afghanistan to rid the country the Taliban they fled again. They had just returned when I got there in 2002. And they were willing to talk, well the dad was, Asad was willing to talk about Rashid Dostum, this notorious warlord who was the partner with the United States. The United States had taken him on as their military partner on the ground to fight the Taliban. So they were able to defeat the Taliban with Rashid Dostum. But we are learning about the atrocities that were being committed including that they had - The allegation was that he and his men had murdered thousands of prisoners of war. And so we wanted to investigate who these people were, these warlords that the US had taken on as partners. No one would talk about that. No Afghans would reveal that. Robina's father, Asad had been conscripted into Dostum's army and he was a man who was willing to talk. Great you know in our business we call it get.

AMT: And so tell us a little bit more about Abdul Rashid Dostum and his reputation.

CAROL OFF: He was actually established by the Soviets during the Soviet American proxy war. He was known to murder people, massacre civilians, as Asad said in that clip. At the same time he would murder his own men if they got in his way. Remember one journalist telling me how he had arrived to do an interview with Dostum and there was bits of flesh all over the courtyard. And it had been one of his own men that had put under the tank treads and run over. He's now we should point out the vice president of Afghanistan. Not only was he not routed after all these things, not only did get away with everything he did, he's been rewarded so amply.

AMT: What role did Assad play in this army?

CAROL OFF: Because he was living in the north, in Rashid Dostum territory, Asad was conscripted into the military. But because he was a businessman and so you know he didn't know which end of a gun to hold. Rashid Dostum wasn't going to give them one of his weapons. So what he needed other people to do was logistics. And so Asad was required to go through checkpoints and get materials to Dostum people and it was just a frightening time but he didn't do it. He had already been clear that they were going to do horrible things to his children. And so he had seen firsthand what Dostum was capable of. So he was a very valuable insider for us.

AMT: And so was Asad Aryubwal involved in any of the crimes he was accusing Dostum’s army of committing?

CAROL OFF: No. He skillfully kept out of the combat by virtue of taking on this logistics role. And also he wasn't there during - He wasn't part of it during the times when there was actually major wars going on. All those times he fled like the one time that Ruby is describing – Robina, we used to call her Ruby. That was one of the times when they had to leave because Dostum wanted him to become part of his is fighting forces.

AMT: So what was he telling you about Dostum that got him into so much trouble?

CAROL OFF: He was shocked that Americans, people he admired and Canadians who because we were also there by then, would not see through who this man is, would install these warlords - and Dostum wasn't the only one - and put them on the payroll.

AMT: And here was a man who could actually give you the details of…

CAROL OFF: And he was saying why are you doing this? He was shocked that was happening. He is a dear man and he believed that somehow if we knew that, if our government knew that, if Washington knew that they wouldn't include him as their partner.

AMT: Robina, what was life like in Afghanistan after the start of the American led mission there, after 9/11, at the time that Carol was interviewing your father?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: It was a pretty big change and everyone was optimistic for a good future and we were very happy because schools were reopened for females and I was like the bright student of my school. I had good marks so it was amazing for me.

AMT: Before the Taliban you were in school and then when the Taliban came in you started teaching other girls. Did you know you not?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Yes.

AMT: Secretly.

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Yes, secretly. Like I was learning Dari and math but there were a lot of other women who were coming and my mother was helping them with Dari and I was teaching them English. Even there were some children of Taliban and they were learning English from me.

AMT: I think a lot of people be surprised to know that the Taliban are sending their girls to be taught by you, as well. That's really interesting. Had you been exposed, what kind of risk were you taking?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: So it was a big first for our family. They said if we keep continued this they were going to harm our family. So it's kind of pretty confusing like they want you know their children be educated and they want to stop other children from education.

AMT: Carol this just proves this is not an ordinary family. I mean this is like they were willing to do things to help each other and help others in areas that were forbidden. So Asad Aryubwal gives you an interview. When did you learn that the interview you did with him in the shooting you did around that interview had put his family in danger?

CAROL OFF: Well I went back in 2006 after the Canadian military went into Kandahar. So we back to cover that and we wanted to do an update on our warlord documentary. At that point I didn't know that there had already been threats, that Dostum people had already come to see Asad and told him: “You can't even go home and you can go to the north or you'll be killed. You can only stay in Kabul.” He never told me that. We did another interview in 2006, Asad saying you know this man should be in the War Crimes Tribunal, “Hey you shouldn't be running any part of the country.” Great update. I went back and it was shortly after that that I learned that they had fled the country because after that interview Dostum’s people came to see us at and said: “That's it. If you stay in Afghanistan you will die.”

AMT: Robina what were you thinking? What were other members of your family thinking then about this interview your dad had done with Carol?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Actually we knew about the consequences like this interview is going to be very dangerous for our family, but as a human we should stand for our own right. We cannot live in a society which is unjust. And there should be some want to raise his voice for the sake of welfare of other people. So we knew about the consequences but we did it. I have never regret it.

AMT: Were you ever angry at all your Dad for speaking out?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Oh no. Never, like sometimes he felt he is sorry for what he did but we used to tell him that we are very proud of him.

AMT: Now Carol what did you do to help the Aryubwal family after you found out they were in such danger?

CAROL OFF: I told them that I was going to get them out of this mess that I put them in, and it was just a matter of time. It was logical. These were absolutely the most deserving refugees I could ever imagine. They should come to Canada. They had risked their lives in order to, they believe, warn the Canadians about the danger they were getting into. He'd spoken to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. All of this indicated to me this is a person that deserved refuge in our country. You know I'm not naive. I didn't know how difficult it was going to be. I didn't know it would take almost nine years, almost nine years to get them out of the trouble that they were in. While they lived in exile in Pakistan were every single day there was some renewed threat to their lives, I mean it was frightening for them.

AMT: They were in Pakistan at this point.

CAROL OFF: They were in Pakistan, they were in exile.

AMT: So you fled that last time and you were going to Pakistan, Robina, to try to get refugee status so that you could apply to come to Canada, correct?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Yes. Exactly.

AMT: And so that last time when you left, what was that like, when you left Afghanistan?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: We were kind of very scared. We knew about the situation in Pakistan for refugees. We knew that if we go to Pakistan, Pakistan is pretty close to Afghanistan and Pakistan is a society like whoever will do whatever for the sake of money, because there are a lot of poor people and the police would never have asked like what happened to this family because we were a refugee. No one will ask you know what happened to a refugee. It was pretty scary and very very tough for our family members. But the only hope that we had was Carol. If we didn't have Carol, I can't imagine, like, we would be alive or we would be hopeful as we are here. She used to tell us like don't worry there is a dark tunnel and there always light at the end of that tunnel. She used to call our family, text us, email us. She sent us money.

AMT: And Carol I mean at this point you go from being a journalist to getting very involved with this family. Talk to me a little bit about how your decision to step in and your sense of responsibility in this.

CAROL OFF: Well as a fellow journalist you'll know, Anna Maria, how difficult it was. Because we have we have a code. It's not written down but we don't get involved. We have responsibilities but we don't step over a line. So here I was. Initially I thought I'm actually doing this as a journalist. I mean these were as a journalist I got them into this hot water and this is a continuation of my work. But as the years went on I realized how involved I was. It just was almost a daily basis. We had some kind of crisis something we were working on together and it was very odd for me because I am a pretty orthodox journalist in the way of you know what how you keep your distance. You have to be impartial. And yet I came to love these people as though they were mine.

AMT: But you weren't reporting on them, by this point. You're doing this behind the scenes trying to...

CAROL OFF: I wasn't reporting on them so I wasn't you know involved in them in that respect. But I was reporting on the refugee crisis. While I was trying to manipulate my way through it, we were reporting on Afghanistan, the politics of it, while I was trying to get them out of the hands of the vice president of the country. So yeah there were definitely times when I thought: “Am I in a conflict here?” And then everyone knew what I was doing at work. So I'd say you guys have to keep an eye out for this because I'm worried about conflicts. I'm not going to step over the line. But you know we have to get them out of this but at the same time I can't leave my work.

AMT: And remind us again how many years from when you suggested they do this too when you actually greeted them at the airport?

CAROL OFF: It was like almost nine wasn’t it?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Nine, yes.

AMT: Why so long?

CAROL OFF: Well this is the fallacy of what's going on. We have people who say you know we can't just open the doors and let refugees in willy nilly. My gosh, these people are screened almost to death and it's so bureaucratic. There's so many hoops you have to jump through. We also found tremendous amount of corruption. But the day I decided Damn. I'm going to write a book and expose this was when Ruby called to say they were told that they had to pay money to an account in Moscow if they wanted to get out of this mess. Fifty thousand U.S. dollars to actually get their papers done, by the unit UNHCR. We don't know if really was. We don't know if it was legitimate. But the others were saying yeah this is how you do it. So this is what happens when you make it so difficult. People will do anything to get out of danger. I happen to have the fortune or misfortune of trying to help the most honest man on the subcontinent.

AMT: He didn't want anything to do with going the other...

CAROL OFF: Not a single bribe. And so we had to do everything through these legitimate channels and we just found out how impossible it was.

AMT: You write, at one point in your book, that the family will read here meaning on the page of this book for the first time, that at one point you thought of walking away from them. It had become so hard.

CAROL OFF: Ruby [unintelligible] she's getting a lot of tears in her eyes. When you read that because, yes, I haven't asked you. What did you think when you read that?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Actually, to be honest, we have never realized. She have never shown us that she is tired and she will give up. She used to tell us that we shouldn't give up. But you know because it was a matter of dead and life for us, we were tired of that long process. We really were kind of, we were saying No nothing will happen. You know we will die like this. And this is our life. Nothing will change. And whenever we were tired she used to call us: “Oh. We will hire a good lawyer” or “we will expose this and everything will be fine”.

AMT: My reading of that was, Carol, you thought you had let them down.

CAROL OFF: I thought I had become the problem. Because at that point we were trying to – We got through the UNHCR and got them legitimate status as refugees and then we were trying to get them into Canada. And the years were going by. I was trying to cover the story of the refugees and challenge Chris Alexander the minister of immigration at the time. At the same time I was trying to get the Canadian government to approve them and making sure that I kept a firewall between those two things. And so I thought well maybe, you know, I'm not using my influence. I'm never calling anybody in the government because I can't. But maybe the fact that I am a journalist, maybe that is a fact. Maybe I've been giving them false hope all this time and that what they really should be doing - I should just take all the money in my bank account and transfer it to them and say: “Take this and run as fast as you can get into the rubber dinghies cross the Mediterranean” because I'm not getting anywhere.

AMT: Well let's fast forward because after years of this you finally meet again at the Toronto airport. 2015, what month was it?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: It was November 15^th.

AMT: You remember. What was that moment like Robina?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: It was kind of like amazing moment for our family. Because till the Pearson Airport we thought “Will we make or not” and when we saw Carol like she was weaving. It was kind of the best moment of our life you know. It was the moment that we were waiting for nine years.

CAROL OFF: I can still see Asad coming through the arrivals, pushing his cart. It was a mountain of bags. And last time I'd seen him he was a man with brown hair and I was seeing a man with gray hair. And he's pushing all these baggage you know metaphorically as well. And it's falling off and he's waving frantically and there's this big huge smile. And he came through the door and then he just let the car go, and suddenly I was just smothered in this embrace and this is a man who completely broke down into uncontrollable sobs. It wasn't just the nine years. It was you know decades of grief. Everything I felt that moment he was passing through to me and I was just saying to him: “It's okay now. You're home.”

AMT: Robina, how's your family doing now? How's your mom? How are your siblings?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Actually we are [unintelligible] Toronto’s life. Our family and I believe in gender equality, human rights. We're very very happy that we are here. We wanted those things and we wanted safety which we are feeling now we are safe here. And it's amazing I'm going to school again, my siblings got job. My mother started her small business.

AMT: Your mom is selling dumpling.

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: She's selling Afghani mantoo. And she's enjoying that.

AMT: What are you studying at university?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: I'm really optimistic to go to law school. I'm taking major in philosophy, minor in political science, and minor French. So I really want to be a lawyer and to help other women and other children.

AMT: If you had to go back to the beginning of the story knowing everything that happened would you still interview Asad?

CAROL OFF: No. No. If I had known this was happening, even before I did the second interview if I had known. No I wouldn't I wouldn't. And he knew that. So that's the problem we have is that people want to tell these stories, they are really ready to risk so much and we have to be so careful of that as journalists. He wasn't going to tell me that he was his whole family was being threatened, because he thought it was necessary. And so I wouldn't have done which is, when you think of it, a real problem because that's what the tyrants and the bad guys and the dictators want.

AMT: How do you see a broader human responsibility towards people like the Aryubwal family?

CAROL OFF: You know, I love Ruby and her family dearly, but they are exactly the same as all those other people who are getting into those little boats and crossing the Mediterranean. This fear we have of allowing these refugees to come because they're going to bring all kinds of bad things. It's the opposite. They're fleeing terrorism. They're fleeing the things that we're against. And there are people like this I mean, with some exceptions of course. My responsibility, I went into Afghanistan with all the best intentions to expose a story. And there were consequences for that. We as a country go and invaded Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban and then we leave in the same way. All the best intentions are going in there. I think Canada needs to regard its responsibility to Afghanistan and to start seeing these people and the needs they have, that we have abandoned.

AMT: Robina, maybe I'll just give you the last word here in terms of how you see your future now compared to how you saw it back then?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: We are very optimistic about our future. So it's me and my siblings. We want to be well educated and then help other people. Every member of my family has a bright future ahead. And we are lucky enough to have Carol in our life and she's a miracle woman that changed everyone's life and our family, and we really appreciate it. And I really thank her and I really want others to learn. It's very important if we have you know everything for our self. It's her duty to think about others too. So there are a lot of other people in the world that need to be helped.

CAROL OFF: I'm going to have the last word and say I'm the one who's so lucky to have you in my life.

AMT: Thank you both.

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Thank you very much for inviting us here.

CAROL OFF: Thanks Anna Maria.

AMT: She blew her a kiss. Carol Off, the host of CBC's As It Happens, also the author of All We Leave Behind: A Reporter's Journey into the Lives of Others. And we were joined by Robina Aryubwal, the eldest daughter of the family Carol of helped bring to Canada as refugees. They are both in our Toronto studio. Stay with us in our next half hour for this season's project Adaptation. Why is it that some species are thriving in an age of mass extinction? We'll go through that. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti this is The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM, Online on cbc.ca/thecurrent, on podcast and on your radio app.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

How nature fights back against extinction: Inheritors of the Earth author

Guest: Chris Thomas

AMT: Hi I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Adaptation Theme]

AMT: It has become accepted wisdom that we humans are bad for the co-inhabitants of our planet. A report from the World Wildlife Fund seems to prove the point. Canada's endangered species are declining faster than ever despite legislation designed to protect them. Climate change, hunting, habitat destruction, pollution, we are killing off species at such a rate that it's often said we are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction. But my next guest believes there is a silver lining to some of this and that humans may in fact be good for biodiversity. Chris Thomas is a professor of biology at the University of York in England. He's the author of The Inheritors of The Earth: How Nature is Thriving in an Age of Extinction. And as part of our project this season, Adaptation, he argues many species are taking advantage of new opportunities created by humans. They're adapting to new environmental realities and they are thriving. He says we need to better understand this adaptation to shape our thinking around conservation. Chris Thomas joins us from York, England. Hello.

CHRIS THOMAS: Hello Anna Maria.

AMT: You don't hear a positive message very often around the environment these days, yet you are optimistic about the future of many species. Why is that?

CHRIS THOMAS: Well it's mainly based on the observation that the number of species in most countries in the world has actually increased in recent years. It's a slightly odd thing but although introduced species are often seen as the worst thing ever to hit our planet, in fact on average, more species arriving purple loosestrife for example grows in marshlands in Canada and but freak species has arrived arrives by and large, generally speaking the native species survive okay. And it's only very rarely or in particular situations, like no psionic islands when rats arrive and kill off flightless birds that we really see a major negative impact of all of these new arrivals. So if we just count up the number of species in every country and nearly all of them it's actually going up not down.

AMT: So before we continue with what you see is that good news, can we talk about the bat a little bit? Do you believe there is a Sixth Extinction happening?

CHRIS THOMAS: It's very early days to say that we're going to end up with a mass extinction that is of a similar magnitude to the so-called big five extinctions that have taken place over the last five hundred million years. But we're sort of on the way. And if we were to keep up the current rate of extinction for another say ten thousand years then we would get there. So yes we are having a major impact. But of course the consequence of having a major impact and killing a lot of things off is still land. When people talk about habitat destruction, what they usually mean is we've transformed it from something that used to exist into something different. Life on earth is a pretty resilient thing. And you find out that a lot of new species move into those new environment that we have created. So there's a great deal of loss. I'm not belittling that a tool. And I think it's really important that we try and reduce to an absolute minimum the rate at which species are dying out. But what I'm identifying is that there's almost an equivalent amount of gain and that we should see these gains for what they are; genuine positive biological stories rather than trying to knock all of these newcomers down, as though they're somehow irritants that we would prefer didn't exist.

AMT: Can you give me some examples of species that you see adapting to human interference.

CHRIS THOMAS: Well what we're seeing is that in large numbers a species, of butterflies for example, have been changing their diet. The plants that that caterpillars eat to make you sly the new habitats that humans have created, or to take advantage of climate change and move their distribution. So in North America there's an endangered subspecies of Edith's checkerspot called tailless checkerspot. And this butterfly now has changed its style. So it lays eggs on a plant called Plantago lanceolata, but it's local name amongst the native population was white man's footprints, because it followed the settlers across North America. Now this butterfly now has changed its preference for which plants the female butterflies like to lay their eggs on. So that tailless checkerspot is now almost entirely dependent on laying eggs on this nonnative introduced plant. It's become adapted to a new kind of habitat that's being created by humanity.

AMT: And over how much time?

CHRIS THOMAS: Decades not much longer.

AMT: Are you suggesting that some species will be able to adapt fast enough to stay ahead of potential extinction from human interference?

CHRIS THOMAS: Well some will and someone to and of course extinctions, if you talk to an evolutionary biologist, and extinction is simply the failure to evolve fast enough to deal with the new challenges that come along. So some species are going extinct but many aren't. And the literature, you can look at the scientific literature, there's hundreds and hundreds of accounts of species becoming adapted to human associated changes to the environment. Some species won't make it. That's absolutely for sure. I'm not in any way denying that there's an environmental crisis going on. Lots of species are going extinct. But if you look at for example things like when new insecticides are applied on new herbicides are then applied over large areas to our crops. Most of these most of these pesticides in fact are only effective really for about 10 15 years or so, before a sufficient number of the insect pests have now evolved to be able to deal with that pesticide and they're able to eat the crops again.

AMT: And in the midst of all that I do have a question about the value of these different species then, do gains in plant species or insects account? What about the losing of land mammals? Like where is the equivalency? How do you weigh that?

CHRIS THOMAS: There isn't pure equivalency and by your bad luck is that you're interviewing an insect ecologist, who really rather likes insects and a lot of them are doing quite well, [unintelligible]. So large mammals and island birds are the two groups of species that are perhaps have been hit hardest. So something like I think it's 178, so getting on for 200 species of large mammals around the world have gone extinct since humans left Africa. So in the last 50 to 100 thousand years, having said that the species of large mammal that survive, like our domestic livestock, in fact if you weigh all of those mammals across the planet now, so you can weigh up all the cows, you weigh up all the sheep, you way up all pigs, and the way up all of us as human, big mammals, you actually find there's a lot more flesh on this planet was before we came along. Now that's not a real compensation. Now over large parts of the continent, we're finding that the large predators like wolves and bison and moose and so on, that a lot of these animals now are no longer being hunted as fast as they breed. And so the populations of these species are starting to recover.

AMT: Well some would argue that that recovery specifically of wolves and bison is because of very direct conservation efforts.

CHRIS THOMAS: Oh absolutely. I'm regarding that as part of the process. We start off. We as a sort of human cycle. So everything that's happened is because of humans and things got killed off because of humans now things being saved because of humans. This is all part of our behavior. Nothing I'm saying saying we should stop doing conservation. So we start off as hunters. We kill off most of the large mammals. We domesticate others. We rely on that for our meat. And we absolutely have to, just imagine if we didn't have domestic mammals. It would take matter, and we've still carried on eating the same amount of meat had the same human population size. We would polished off essentially every mammal in about a month. That's the food supply apart from our domestic animals. So we absolutely rely on this. Now we rely on this meat from our domestic animals. We no longer need to hunt wild mammals for our sustenance and that allows us to take different attitudes to them including conservation.

AMT: Okay well I want to explore some more of your ideas around conservation and what you believe needs to change and how humans are an integral part of as you see it in the natural world. But let's just go to a few phrases because they matter to you. Many of the species you say are adapting to human interference can be labeled invasive or non-invasive and you take issue with those categorizations. Why?

CHRIS THOMAS: I take issue because the world of everything we know about biology, ecology is about the birth and death of individuals of each species. Evolution is about some genes surviving better than others and mutations that generate completely new forms. And every process in biology and ecology and evolution is a process of change. It's a dynamic process. And yet our attitude to conservation is very often to try and keep things the way they are. And it just isn't the way the world works. So if you contemplate where you live, essentially the entirety of Canada was covered in ice, a mere 15 to 20 thousand years ago. Every species bar a few that are now in the high Arctic that now lives across most of Canada has immigrated into that area. So if you can see that any location in the planet, the set of species that you've got at one time is continuously changing, defending each location against every incomer, just doesn't make any biological sense, it's moving around the world is how species survive. It isn't a threat to the future of [unintelligible].

AMT: OK but let me ask you there are some invasive species that are destructive to ecosystems. The emerald ash borer has killed great stretches of forest in Canada. The zebra mussel that came in the build tanks of freighters has changed and the ecology of the Great Lakes. How should we deal with those things do we just say let it happen?

CHRIS THOMAS: You can look at these things two different ways. All it is a species and some species have a larger impact on ecosystems than others. But this is also true of your native species. What's the most common tree in Canada? I must say I don't know but it's that common tree is only common now because - that tree essentially didn't grow in Canada or it would be very rare, fifteen to twenty thousand years ago. So a lot of the things that we think of as native that are common. We think oh it's a native species. It's a common species that's wonderful. But well a non-native species or something from elsewhere comes along becomes common. We throw up our hands and say: “Oh no the whole world is falling apart” and we may care about some of these changes but I think we need to ask very carefully which of them we really wish to resist, which of the changes we all will find acceptable. We should respond to a species by the impacts of those species rather than making a judgment on their origins.

AMT: Your thinking has generated some controversy among other scientists. One paper called your ideas around invasive species ‘science denialism’ and drew parallels between you and those who deny the well and I'm quoting here “deny the risks of tobacco smoking or immunisation, the causes of AIDS or climate change”. That's as strong a critique why do you think that what you're saying is so controversial?

CHRIS THOMAS: Well first of all, for me it's not that controversial actually. I'm not saying that various non-native species don't change ecosystems and places, some of them do. It's a tiny percentage it's only about sort of a fraction of 1% make any serious change to the new worlds where they arrive. So what I'm not saying is that there aren't any changes that there are losses. But I'm saying that the also very large numbers of gains and we shouldn't look at these gains and think because it is change therefore it is bad, because I'm making the argument we always live with change. That's how the biological world works. Given that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of non-native species, as people describe, them around the world now, are we going to try and fight all of this change? Or we're just going to accept that it its part of a new ecological biodiversity? And in some places if the number of species in a particular place in a particular country goes up, which it has in most countries in the world, then is that a bad thing because it's less like the past or is it a good thing because we've got more biodiversity? The judgment is a social one as to whether you want a world that's more like the past or whether you're going to accept that the world is dynamic and it's changing. My argument is first of all it's a social decision not a denial issue. We could probably agree on the data. And that I also would take my view that we live with this change in large part, because trying to act like so many [unintelligible] stopping the waves from coming in, is simply not going to work. We're just going to waste a huge amount of money and effort and things fighting a battle that we are absolutely certainly going to lose.

AMT: Okay, well that that sounds like a good point for our debate and yet when we went to the authors of that paper we couldn't get the talk to us. One wrote back to say and I'm quoting here: “I would not say there is disagreement within the conservation community. I would say there is Chris and there is basically everyone else.” And I he went on to say that he was worried to come onto this show because that would create a false equivalency between your view and the broader consensus on conservation.

CHRIS THOMAS: It is uncertain what the exact frequency of different views is. I was reading a book recently in fact which was suggesting that from surveys of opinion including amongst invasive species biologists that it's about a 20% - 80% split and that in my opinion this view of a more flexible approach is one that is growing and the science base. This argument that we've got this huge degradation of biodiversity everywhere that they are now suggesting this isn't true.

AMT: What should the goal of Conservation be in your view?

CHRIS THOMAS: Well ultimately I could fall on my sword and say well just whatever people want and if the majority want something which in the end I'm absolutely convinced is going to fail, then then fine go ahead and do it if it makes you happy. A complete waste of effort. So be it. But to me the value of biodiversity is that it acts as a - And here I'm completely on the same page as all of the people who I'm now in a bit of an argument - is that in the end it's a long term flexibility for the Earth's systems. So when the environment changes, some species thrive better and some do less well. And given that we're changing the world we don't know which of those rare species that are currently quite localized and seem important and important again to be important and critical to us in the future. Having biodiversity out there, a lot of it, as much as possible, as many species as possible means that however we change the world in the future we're changing the climate at the moment. But who knows what chemicals we're going to release in the future, that ultimately having as many species as possible provides the greatest genetic variety of things that might be able to cope with those new condition.

AMT: Are you at all concerned that your argument will be interpreted as an excuse to get off the hook, that we don't have to worry about the environmental or economic ecological consequences of actions? And I'm thinking of like big corporate actions, the taking over of certain lands that might have been protected for development or something like that.

CHRIS THOMAS: In the Inheritors of the Earth, I make the argument very clearly that the rarest and many of the rarest of the localized species, we should put a lot of effort into trying to protect. We don't know how we're going to alter the environment in the future. And therefore we don't know which species are going to be most valuable to us in the future. So it is this long term flexibility. But I do think that we should contemplate which of the battles we wish to fight and where do we wish to prioritize to maintain that long term flexibility. And rather than just keep things exactly as they are in the same places that they were.

AMT: You also talk about scientists who are contemplating introducing elephants and lions to North America. Tell us about that.

CHRIS THOMAS: Well the argument is that before humans arrived in North America. Well we know for a fact that there was a large numbers of large mammals’ species. There were giant grounds, slots, there were huge armadillo relatives as well as the mammoths and other relatives of elephants. And the argument goes something like this that all of the other species in North America have historically survived in the presence of these very large mammals. And they might rely in some way on the grazing and browsing by a set of very big animals. And the argument goes well if we release big animals back into North America maybe that will improve the prospects for the rest of biological diversity in the continent in the very long run. It has to be said that there isn't any very strong evidence one way or the other and because nearly all of these animals were extinct by ten thousand years ago, the whole continent and planet as a whole has adjusted to the situation of not having very large mammals. So it's an interesting concept. And it is but it is sort of gaining traction that we try and put back large animals where it is possible, so that some of these historical processes could kick back in.

AMT: How would you like to see us re-imagine humanity's relationship with the natural world?

CHRIS THOMAS: Well I'd like to see humans as part of the system. Most ecologists and conservationists effectively treat humanity and the impacts of humans as a sort of black box outside nature. But this black box of humanity is generating unpleasant things that nature then suffers from and then out to some sense of responsibility or more practical reasons we decide we want to try and reduce those impacts in some way. But in fact humans are an evolved species and therefore indirectly all of the things that we have done to the rest of nature is an indirect consequence of evolution of us. And therefore when the world changes biologically because we are around, this can be seen as part of the natural process of the earth and that we should look at this and think “Well is this change something that we can live with, the planet, as biological planet as a whole could live with? Or is it something that we would rather we didn't go down that way?” So there are lots of things for example: Wide scale pollution, climate change that's extremely rapid. These are things that are just crazy for us to be doing. And we should move very fast to stop doing these things and whenever we notice a new problem that we've generated we should act extremely quickly. But the biological consequences of the changes that are taking place we probably shouldn't fight very often, because this is often just nature's way of effectively adjusting to the changes that we have generated.

AMT: What responsibility do humans have to adapt to minimize our impact on other species?

CHRIS THOMAS: The responsibility I would just say is the social attitudes, and our social behavior. I ultimately don't think that we have any kind of fundamental responsibility that nearly all species that have ever existed on this planet are already extinct. And nearly all of the ones that currently exist are going to be extinct in another 30 million years’ time. So, you know, life on earth is a process. And therefore I don't know that there's a sort of ultimate responsibility. However we can all ask well what will the planet be like in a few centuries or a few millennia? And will it be better or worse for our own descendants at that time?

AMT: What do you think?

CHRIS THOMAS: So that's the question that I would ask myself and anyone else who's doing something some practical action in conservation. Is what you're doing now going to make any big difference in a few centuries time? And if it isn't your and you're fighting this sort of local battle to keep something of it as it is then why are you fighting this battle if you know the war is going to be lost in the long run? And secondly, even if you could win it, if your descendants had say 150 years’ time didn't know what the current state polls and then they found the new state of the world with all the new species in it in 150 years’ time, would they think it was any worse than the one that exists now? And if the answer to that is “no, no I wouldn't really care very much if they would be just used to their new world”, then again what is it being done? Why are we trying to keep the planet just the same as it is, when as I say biology is all about the process of dynamic change rather than one of species?

AMT: Okay. Chris Thomas thanks for sharing your ideas with us.

CHRIS THOMAS: You're very welcome. Thank you.

AMT: Chris Thomas is the author of the book Inheritors of The Earth: How Nature is Thriving in an Age of Extinction. He's a professor of biology at the University of York in England and that's where we reached him. That's our program for today's stay with Radio One for Q. Canadian composer Mychael Danna has scored many of Hollywood's best loved films including Life of Pi, Little Miss Sunshine, Moneyball, Capote, The Sweet Hereafter. With the world premiere of his Life of Pi orchestral suite in Toronto, Mychael Danna talks to Tom Power about what goes into scoring a hit movie and how he turns ideas into melodies. Remember you can always take The Current with you on the CBC Radio app free from the App Store or Google Play. Remember if you want to reach us go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent or find us on Twitter we are @TheCurrentCBC. Now in the coming days Rick Hansen is going to be here. This year marks the 30th anniversary of his Man in Motion world tour and his campaign for greater accessibility for people with disabilities. For a man who circled the world in a wheelchair, there seemed to be no challenge too great for this athlete. In 2009 however CBC's Rick Mercer challenged Rick Hanson to go bungee jumping. We won't leave you dangling. Here is Rick Hansen bungee jumping. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

RICK HANSEN: Perfect.

RICK MERCER: You know those types of athletes who try to get into the other athletes head.

RICK HANSEN: If you have the upper hand, no.

RICK MERCER: Oh yes. Totally.

RICK HANSEN: Before I was…

RICK MERCER: Before I was a coward. Now I'm a bragger.

[Laughter]

RICK MERCER: So you're only really strapped in like this. You can't change your mind. The stuff we get into.

RICK HANSEN: You are a bad man.

RICK MERCER: It is the man in motion, except it's down this time.

[Laughter]

One Two Three

Woah. Woah. Wooo.

[Cheering and applause]

RICK MERCER: Rick brother. Rick, how are you?

RICK HANSEN: I can’t feel my legs.

[Laughter]

RICK HANSEN: Oh no. That was cool man, woo.

RICK MERCER: Unbelievable. It's not every day you see a guy in a wheelchair and dangling over a gorge, Rick Hansen.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

September 19, 2017 Full Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This