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 2023

The Current Transcript for January 23, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Many of us don't feel anymore like technology is for us. It's for a company that's trying to extract some value from us. We're no longer the beneficiaries of technology, or at least not the primary ones.

MATT GALLOWAY: We are surrounded by pieces of technology that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. Maybe you are listening to us right now through one of those devices when they were launched. The sense from many was that those innovations might change the world. Now the worry is they're listening to you to eventually sell you something in an hour. How new technology lost its joy and why that matters. Also this morning, Clayton Thomas-Muller spends much of his life searching for joy and inspiration. And increasingly he's finding it by looking over his shoulder.

SOUNDCLIP

You know, we see a lot of mobilisation across the planet of young people who are connecting the dots. They're the ones that are not just going to be the leaders of the future, but that are taking up the reins of leadership right now.

MG: As part of our series Reasons for Optimism, the Cree author and environmental activist returns to talk about how the creativity and impatience of the next generation is bringing him hope and keeping him on his toes. That is in 30 minutes. But as Canadians continue to struggle with a health care system that can feel like it's at its breaking point, we start with signs of a new deal on the horizon. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is the Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Our national affairs panel on federal-provincial health-care negotiations

Guest: Tonda MacCharles, Emilie Nicolas, Andre Picard

SOUNDCLIP

We know how important it is to continue to invest in our health care systems. And I've had some great conversations with a number of premiers, including Premier Ford and Premier Moe has been working very, very hard as well as part of a small group looking at improving improving health care across the country. And I look forward to being able to announce positive steps forward in the very near future.

MG: The provinces and the federal government seem to agree that our health care system needs more funding and better results. The challenge, of course, is how to get there and how we will know that things are actually improving. Joining me now, three journalists who are watching these negotiations closely. Tonda MacCharles is a senior reporter with the Toronto Star's Ottawa bureau. She's in Hamilton, Ontario, where the liberal cabinet is meeting today. Emilie Nicolas is a columnist for La Devoir, also hosts the French language podcast Detour. And Andre Picard, health columnist for the Globe and Mail. Good morning, everyone.

GUESTS: Good morning.

MG: Tonda, we heard the Prime Minister say that there seems to be a deal on the horizon. Presumably the fine points of that will be hammered out at the liberal retreat that you are keeping a close eye on. What's the key sticking point being thus far, do you think?

TONDA MACCHARLES: Look, I think there's two key sticking points. One, it's money, dollars and cents. And two, it's the idea that the federal government would dictate to the provinces how billions in health care might be spent because they very jealously guard their responsibilities in that area. So. So the idea of strings being attached has been a sticking point. But I think we've heard in the last several weeks and there's been a lot of movement in the last ten days or so that many premiers are willing to go along because frankly, their priorities are much the same. They all want to spend more on mental health services, on recruiting more doctors and nurses and home care and long term care.

MG: Andre We'll get into both of those. Andre Let's talk about the dollars and cents. As Tonda says, the provinces have been calling for the federal government to foot a larger proportion of the health care bill, upwards of 35% from 22% when it comes to the federal contribution. How likely do you think that is to happen?

ANDRE PICARD: I think we're going to get a significant increase. It's doubtful it'll be the full 28 billion because both sides have to save face in some way. I think we have to remember, rather than talk percentages right now, we transfer about 45 billion from Ottawa to the provinces with a 3% escalator and another 19.6 billion in tax points, which people don't like to talk about. It's uncomfortable and they want this significant increase. But based on what we're hearing, the provinces are asking for about 28 billion. Looks like Ottawa's willing to go in the range of 18 to 20 billion so that they're going to be close before a deal is signed.

MG: Can you just explain for people who don't understand, why are the tax points uncomfortable to talk about? What does that mean?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, because it gets in the way of this math. You know that Ottawa's cheap and there's only funding 22% of health care. In fact, it's about a third when you take in these tax points. But they're a little more difficult to calculate than cash.

MG: Okay. So which suggests that perhaps Ottawa is sending more money than people. Perhaps provincial leaders are willing to acknowledge?

ANDRE PICARD: Yeah, I think it suggests that we also have to remember what the you know, we talk about. Initially, Ottawa paid half of all health care costs. Right. But in fact, the deal was quite clearly about hospitals and physicians. And the rest of the system is overall quite murky. Who funds what?

MG: Okay, come back to that in a moment, Emilie. Let's get to the strings part of the negotiations. The federal government, as we've heard, is suggesting that it would give more money for health care, but with conditions in the fall. Quebec Premier Legault said Mr. Trudeau thinks he is better and he knows better than Christian Dubé, the health Minister, when it comes to how that money should be spent. How are those strings going over in Quebec?

EMILIE NICOLAS: So it's interesting, over the over the last while, there's been a lot of informal conversations between the premier of Quebec Premier and the Prime Minister, and the vocabulary on those strings have evolved over time. It used to be that we were talking about conditions now where mostly when you hear the letter, the leaders pressures from Justin Trudeau, you're mostly hearing about data collection, basically sharing of information. And because a lot of that information is already collected as some provinces more than other, but now a lot of information of it is already even publicly available. If you want to know what's going on in provincial health care across the country. So that's a way basically for the federal government to to backtrack on their their imposition of conditions without losing face, because that that is already out there. But they're saying that now the coalition is is to share data. That being said, there's a number of priorities that the federal government has when it comes to health care. So what we might see is something that looks like a deal across the country with all ten provinces and three territories. That's mostly about the money. And then some additional negotiation with individual provinces who are interested in share in working the same priorities as the federal government and doing bilateral agreements on that. So it looks like the coalition, the coalition roadblock has got it out of the way. But there might be ways for the Federal government to come back with it. But signing a deal first.

MG: I guess if you just go back to that quotation from the premier, I mean, is it about the specifics of the conditions or would any intrusion likely to be contentious when it comes to health care? Because as we've been talking about, it seems like since the Earth cooled, this is about a federally funded program largely that is administered by provinces and territories.

EMILIE NICOLAS: Yeah, it depends on which premiere you're talking about. But when it comes to cost, when I go, it is very much at the position of a principal that has quite a lot of resonance and to make across the political spectrum. So I don't think that's something that required a lot of debate, for example, inside the National Assembly. But it's also not something that he's isolated about. You have some of that share concern as well as actually coming from Alberta and from Ontario as well as from from other provinces as well. So I think one of the strength of the negotiation that's been happening in the last few months is that you haven't had one province that has been ready to, you know, sign a final deal on funding and on the side table where there's been quite a united front. And so that's why the federal government was also wary about having a full meeting that included all actors without having made some advancements in the negotiations.

MG: Tonda, why is this idea of national data sharing a system that would allow for that sharing of the data such a priority, do you think, for the federal government?

TONDA MACCHARLES: Well, it's a priority because they argue that the idea of data is not just, you know, a matter of the feds coming in and saying, we want to know what you're doing and be accountable to us. But they're arguing that it has a direct relationship to the outcomes of the health of Canadians. And so they're looking to have more more information, not just on an individual level about, you know, what doctors and nurses have access to, what electronic medical records of patients and what patients have access in terms of their own medical records. But they're talking about it on a population level. So, you know, on a nationwide level, how many Canadians do have access to family doctors and where are the gaps in staffing. And what does work in addressing sort of when there's a surge in, you know, one particular kind of health crisis in one part of the country or the other, know what what works best. So they're arguing that better data and better data sharing will help the outcomes and the results for Canadians. But just I just want to loop back I mean, I actually think that that's a that is a question that's been longstanding in the health care system and that provinces and the feds have been trying to address. They seem to be now a little bit more all centred on if that's what it takes to get more money into the system to solve the crisis. Right now in emergency rooms, that's what it takes, you know, But in that regard, I just want to sort of disagree a bit with Emily. I think actually that common front of premiers has broken down and you've seen in the last ten days or two weeks even a big departure from what we saw prior to Christmas when the premiers were all sticking together. In fact, Doug Ford saying that he could live with strings attached was a huge game changer-

MG: Francois Legault followed suit for-

TONDA MACCHARLES: Francois Legault, yeah, and you can change the language around this, but the fact is there's huge political pressure. All these political leaders do not want deaths in their air on their watch. Right. We saw what happened in Nova Scotia recently. Huge political pressure has been building. They're all trying to deal with their budgets, Many actually. Another factor in this is many of the provinces are actually either close or close to or at a balanced budget. So, you know, crying poor is actually not going to work anymore. So so I think that there's a shift in not just the dynamic but the way that they're all looking at, okay, well, maybe we can collect collaborate better on things like better outcomes and reporting on it.

MG: Emilie, let me just go back to you quickly. How much pressure is Francois Legault under? Given that I mean, individually, we are seeing this crisis play out in various jurisdictions. We've seen it, as Tonda mentioned, in Nova Scotia. We've talked about what's happening in Ontario, in British Columbia, in Quebec as well. How much pressure is he under to land some sort of deal that would ease the burden in those emergency departments and make the access to care better for people in Quebec?

EMILIE NICOLAS: He is under a lot of pressure. So that's one reason why I don't think we're saying very different thing. It's true that primaries have been, you know, largely united, and it's true as well that there's been a tone shift in since the new year. And what we've been asking for, because there's been those reported cases of people dying in the emergency system and there's there's system failures. And so that has forced several premiers to put water in there in their, you know, to to dial down a little bit the tone of their their argumentation. And but what's been happening in terms of the rhetoric in Quebec is that it's the premier himself has opted to go himself because, you know we've spoke to Justin Trudeau and and we know that now he's very much insisting himself on that change, a vocabulary that we're not talking about conditions anymore. We're talking about sharing of data, We're talking. So by doing that, they're very able to essentially move their position without sounding like they're losing face. And I think we've been seeing a lot of that across the different provinces. And there's been also a very close personal relationship, I think personal friendship that has developed over time between Francois Legault and Ford, where both have been premier for a while, both being re-elected and the they being the two premiers of the largest provinces in their country. They are always checking in with each other in terms of what they're going to say publicly, has also influenced the way that the negotiations are taking place.

MG: There are jurisdictional issues, Andre, at the centre in many ways of these conversations, one of the things that people point to is that the role of the federal government is to enforce the Canada Health Act. There are concerns that perhaps that's being threatened by how some of the provinces are responding to this crisis right now. Is that fair, do you think, to say that that the Canada Health Act is being threatened?

ANDRE PICARD: I don't think so. I think people misunderstand the Canada Health Act largely. They give it far too much weight. Essentially, the Canada Health Act allows Ottawa to withhold money from provinces if they spend on essential medical or health services. So it's a very you know, the law is very specific. Only a province can breach the Canada Health Act, for example, and they can have funding withheld. So I think it's largely a mythical law more than anything else. I don't think it's a big issue in this. When you get right down to it.

MG: A lot of attention has been paid and people raise this because of a lot of attention is being paid to what's happening in Ontario when it comes to moving. Some surgeries will be upwards of 50% permanently to private facilities still funded by public dollars. But these are privately run facilities. This happens in different ways in other jurisdictions. But when you take a look at what's happening in Ontario, what's going through your mind?

ANDRE PICARD: Yeah, what Ontario's doing is essentially contracting out services, but still paying them with public dollars, which is not in any way a breach of the the Canada Health Act is something that other provinces like Alberta have been doing for two decades now. This is not really very controversial, I don't think, but people are up in arms in it because whenever you say the word private in Canada, it sets off a firestorm. You know this what Ontario's doing makes sense. We should have specialised clinics there. They're more sensible. All surgery doesn't have to be done in hospitals. So it all makes sense. And then the question is about, well, who owns the clinics? I think that's who what we should be debating. Do they have to be privately owned? Not necessarily. But the reason it's happening is because private enterprise will invest in capital, which provinces are really reluctant to do.

MG: So you don't see this as a gateway to two tiered health care system?

ANDRE PICARD: I don't. We've talked about this before, but I'm not a big fan of that term, two tier. The reality is we have a multi-tiered system in Canada. We have a lot of private delivery. We have a lot of private spending. And the question we have to resolve is what does Medicare cover and how are we going to deliver services? Those are the questions we have to debate, not these debates about wording. Is this private? Is it public? Is it a breach of the Canada Health Act? Let's talk about the nitty gritty. How are we delivering? Is it efficient? Is it getting the job done for the public? And ultimately, I think that's what the public cares about. If I'm getting a hip, I don't care where I get it. I want to get it quickly. I want it to be safe. And you don't get back to work.

MG: Tonda, the prime minister, told your paper, These are his words. We're supposed to say that a certain amount of innovation should be good. The people seized on that word innovation. But when you take a look at what's happening in Ontario, in part this matters because the liberals rely on support from the NDP to keep governing. Jagmeet Singh, leader of the NDP, has taken a strong line against privatisation. And so where does that leave the Liberals and their deal with the NDP?

TONDA MACCHARLES: Well, look, I think there's a lot more talk behind closed doors between the Liberals and the NDP about sort of what they're looking at and then than they all led on. I mean, Jagmeet Singh gets to go out and be the big defender of public health care publicly. But behind the scenes, there's that deal for support is very solid because the Liberals are delivering on some of the NDP sort of health related demands like dental care and is looking to do some more work on investments in pharmacare this this, this year. But I think that, you know, the the word innovation, I think it's it buys a bit of time for Justin Trudeau to say, well, I'll watch what Doug Ford is doing and see if this is opening a door to more private health care that we don't want in the system, not just sort of relieving using it as a as an escape valve for the steam built up in emergency rooms and and surgical backlogs. He has also said and you've heard his health minister say that they're going to keep a very close eye on what's going on in Ontario. Look, the regulatory bodies in Ontario, the doctors, the nurses, they're all flagging concerns about how this will unfold. A lot of the details about how Doug Ford's going to outsource surgical operations to private clinics are still to be worked out. So calling it innovation. Look, everybody thinks that, you know, now now's the time to sort of start making some changes because the pressure has has really grown, I think, on not just the health system but the but the politicians.

MG: Emilie, where does that leave from your perspective at the federal government in terms of trying to reach a deal when different provinces are doing different things to try to ease the burden at at, at, you know, the point of contact for people when they're entering the health care system.

EMILIE NICOLAS: Yeah. And it kind of makes sense that that if you are creating a lot of different initiatives depending on their their plans, their ideologies as well provincially. You know, the federal government is not running a health care system. The provinces are. And so that's why I think there were a lot of tensions on the imposition of conditions and the acquisition of federal priorities, because the a lot of promises are already in the midst of trying to figure out what to do next and to adapt to the realities of of of the pandemic. It does. But politically though, Justin Trudeau in a very peculiar position when he talks about private health care as innovation because of the reasons that are so entrenched in this country that we've just exposed. But there's also the larger issue and concern that is not necessarily about, you know, Medicare and who pays for what service, but just generally about the labour shortage in the country, especially in health care and how there's this there's very concerned that if you're going to open up more private public, the nurses and the doctors are just going to be people who are going to leave and increase actually the backlog in the public system that made those private clinics look like innovation to some people. That's what that's the cycle that I think a lot of Canadians are worried about when they're seeing some premiers going that direction. And of course, it's not the role of the Prime Minister to step in into the nitty gritty of managing health care system. But because of the issue of how this can then lead into just a retraction that leads to more and more private health care all the time. That's something that I think is worth at least having a public debate about.

MG: Andre, I think for people who are listening, who are frustrated with the state of the system right now, whether it's in a crisis, whether it's at a breaking point, use whatever word and phrase you want. They want to know when things are going to get better. How likely is this agreement that seems to be coming together? Likely. How likely is it that that it will, you know, meaningfully and measurably improve the care that Canadians are looking for right now?

ANDRE PICARD: And there's no, there's no magic wand out there. This is the problems we're having today have been a long time coming. They were exacerbated by the pandemic. It's going to take a long time to resolve them. But a deal like this can make a difference, not maybe in the short term, but in the medium term. I think the real key to this deal is to the call for national data. Right now, the provinces strategy for dealing with shortages of labour is to poach people from other jurisdictions. If we have national data, we'll see that. How many nurses and doctors do we have? Where are they? Where are they going? If we get a real picture of that, that that's a really big starting point to help us have a healthy human resources strategy, which we don't in this country. And that's the number one problem by far is staffing. So if we really deal with that, that's going to go a long way towards getting our our system in order or getting the the deck chairs aligned. Right now, it's just sort of shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic every few weeks and we have to just stabilise things and figure out where we're at.

MG: We'll talk, I think again when this deal is actually finalised, it seems to be coming together. In the meantime. Thank you all for for weighing in this morning.

ANDRE PICARD: Thank you.

MG: Thank you. Tonda MacCharles is a senior reporter with the Toronto Star's Ottawa bureau. She's in Hamilton where the Liberals are meeting. Emilie Nicolas, columnist for Le Devoir, Andre Picard, health columnist for the Globe and Mail. More conversation around health care tomorrow. Actually, on the program, I'll be speaking with a former health minister, Dr. Jane Philpott, and the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Alika Lafontaine, about their ideas to get better primary care for all Canadians. That's tomorrow on the current year. CBC News is next. And then, reasons for optimism. We'll hear from the Cree writer and activist Clayton Thomas-Muller. He's coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Cree activist Clayton Thomas-Müller on reasons for optimism

Guest: Clayton Thomas-Müller

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to the Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, remember the joy you felt opening that new Walkman, maybe turning on your first colour TV. Technology used to fill us with wonder. For many people, though, that is changing. A tech philosopher delves into disenchantment with technology. Coming up. But first, grasping onto optimism.

[Music: Theme]

MG: For many people, the last few years have been hard and harrowing, and for many indigenous communities, it has been an especially difficult time. Ongoing revelations of potential unmarked graves at residential schools. The mix of emotions prompted by the papal visit, the violence on the James Smith Cree Nation last year. Amid all that pain, though, my next guest is still finding a wellspring of hope. As part of our series Reasons for Optimism, I'm joined by Clayton Thomas-Müller. He is an environmental activist, a member of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation in Northern Manitoba and the author of Life in the City of Dirty Water: A Memoir of Healing. Clayton Thomas-Müller is in our Winnipeg studio. Clayton, good morning.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Hey, good morning.

MG: It's great to have you back on our program. Are you, by nature, an optimistic person?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Yeah. You know, I can't remember which social media profile it is, but it says unapologetic Cree, hopeless romantic. You know, I tend to try to look at the glass half full. You know, being a Cree man and, you know, given history, I think it's important to always try to maintain a positive outlook on life. Otherwise, you know, it's easy, pretty easy to get stuck in the mire.

MG: How did you get to that place? I mean, we spoke when we talked about your book, about the hardship that you faced growing up, the abuse that you faced growing up. How did you get to a place where you could see that glass as being half full?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Well, somewhere along the journey, somebody was talking to me abstract about time. They said that, you know, everybody thinks time's this like straight line, this linear kind of pathway, you know, straight forward, when in reality time is this like wild, cyclical thing that's like spinning around and around and around. And that a true revolutionary is somebody who identifies a negative cycle in the cyclical of time and, you know, makes the decision to change it and replace it with something positive. And so for myself, you know, I think the opportunity to be a father, you know, I have two teenage sons, you know, that that that the never ending daily opportunity to churn negative cycles in the cyclical of time around for my family through, you know, being a father to my boys you know is the thing that gives me a never ending supply of hope fuel to get through especially the hard days.

MG: You say hope Fuel.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Yeah.

MG: I love that. Can you tell me we talked about your kids before. Can you tell me about, about, I think as a parent, you look at your children and you can't help but be optimistic, but also worried about the world that they are going to step into when you look at them. Where is that optimism coming from? Where is that sense of hope coming from?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Well, no doubt being a parent, especially in the world today, is like hell is stressful. It's no different for me. You know, I've got two teenage Cree boys growing up in Winnipeg. You know, Winnipeg has an infamous reputation, especially if you're indigenous. So, you know, I definitely share the stress that parents carry, you know, in terms of the worry over their children's future. But I don't know. You know, things are very different for my sons.

MG: What do you mean?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Well, I look at my sixteen year old, for example, you know, last summer he just he just went out and got a job. You know, he's an artist. And he went and, you know, he found this thing called the Graffiti Art Gallery here in Winnipeg. And he got himself an internship without any interference by his mother or I. And on his first payroll, something messed up with the payroll. And he didn't get paid that Friday. And, you know, and I remember asking him, well, why didn't you get paid? He's like, Oh, I don't know. Something messed up with their software. Something doesn't matter. They'll pay me on Monday when it's fixed. And he was so nonchalant about it. And I know when I was 16, you know, somebody owed me money and they didn't pay, you know, I would get really upset, you know, And I probably wouldn't react in the way that my 16 year old reacted today. You know, And it's those little subtleties like that. The things that I witnessed in my sons, where they don't have to carry the kind of stress load that I grew up accustomed to and that so many of our relatives are currently living with, even still today here in the inner city of Winnipeg.

MG: Do you get emotional when you think about that?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Of course. You know, I think I think you got to think about it like like a de-stressing on a compound scale, like the Richter scale, you know, where, you know, my mother and my father, my late dad, you know, they dealt with stress and colonialism and capitalism and all the things at a level that was, you know, 10,000 times worse than what my kids face, you know, myself a thousand times worse. And now, you know, the things and the monsters that my kids have to fight in their own lives hopefully won't include, you know, the things that their father never dealt with. And, you know, when they have kids, you know, if that day happens, maybe those kids will, will hopefully not face the same level of stress that they did and that things will get better, more filled with love, more filled with hope.

MG: I mentioned in the introduction that the difficulties and the heartache and more that indigenous communities across this country felt over the last couple of years. How would you how would you characterise what the what those last few years have been like for Indigenous communities in Canada?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Well, respectfully, I would say that that's been the case since the inception of the settler colonial state of Canada. This disproportionate burden that indigenous peoples carry and pay in terms of how Canada, you know, runs its economy. Native people pay a heavy price. And I think with pandemic and you know, this this crazy recession and inflation that we're facing, you know, conflict the world over and of course, the existential threat of climate change, you know, indigenous peoples are you know, we've really been going through a lot, especially with all the things that you outlined in your introduction. You know, it's been a really heavy year. And I think that, you know, for me, the the number one thing, I mean, outside of my family that gives me hope are other young people. You know, I look at youth that are getting politicised all across the planet that are, you know, taking action in elections, that are organising, building community self-determination, building real power. I think that, you know, one of the ways that I've heard Hope described is that it's contagious, you know, and I think that that's what young people today are spreading all over the place with this crazy, beautiful intersectional analysis that they're bringing to the table. You know, it's it's I don't think I've ever seen it, at least in my 45 years of life.

MG: Well, it's a lot of different things to your point. I mean, it's politics, it's activism, it's art. It's about language.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: It's about economic development, too. You know, young people are really doing a lot, I think, to change the world. And, you know, here in Canada, we see, you know, this incredible crisis in the labour market. You know, the majority of workers retiring, you know, white presenting Canadians, you know, European background. And Canadians are having less kids. You know, Canada is taking more immigrants than ever. Indigenous peoples are. You know, our population is exploding. And so the face of what they call Canada is changing dramatically. And this youth population that is organising on climate, on Black Lives Matter, on the rights of trans people, on murdered, missing indigenous women and girls, you know, making the connections between climate change and truth and reconciliation and the 94 recommendations. It's. It's a pretty wild thing to watch as a father.

MG: Well, where do you see specifically progress on those issues? Because there is and there has been certainly in the last many years, a real groundswell of, to your point, young people who are taking the lead, whose timelines, their runway is a lot shorter than other people, perhaps of an older generation when it comes to the change that they want to see. But what have you seen in terms of actual progress?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Well, I think it's numbers. We have to measure things, of course, through the lens of COVID. You know, the pandemic really skewed the political landscape and just, I think, you know, slowed down at least the uptake of perception of change. You know, we look at right before the pandemic closures, you know, young people across the country were responding to the call out from the Wet'suwet'en nation in B.C. who have been fighting against the coastal Gaslink fracked gas line project in their territory and, you know, in Canada was shut down, you know, on the issue of indigenous rights, of climate justice. And then, of course, the pandemic closures happened. But even with the pandemic closures, we saw over a million young people march on the issue of climate change. When Gratitude Big visited the country a couple of years back, we saw hundreds of thousands of people march for Black Lives Matter in response to George Floyd and his murder by the police in Minneapolis. You know, Winnipeg South, as I like to call it. And, you know, that was right during the midst of the pandemic. And I think now, you know, we see young people organising, especially, you know, embracing, you know, a lot. The technology that's available these days, you know, to connect. You know, people are not just connecting in person, but they're connecting on mass zoom, organising calls like we see our friends at 350 organising on a daily basis. You know, we see a lot of mobilisation, I think, across the planet of young people who are connecting the dots. And you know, regardless of whether or not we're feeling them or not, they're the ones that are, that are not just going to be the leaders of the future, but that are taking up the reins of leadership right now.

MG: Do you think we rely too much on those young people to change the world? I mean, you mentioned Clattenburg and she has been really critical of. Olds like us. I'm a bit older than you are but yeah that that it's that it's on us in some ways she's saying that it's not on these young people that they don't need to carry the burden for the mistakes that we've made. We as, as an older generation need to figure out the solutions. Do we, because of what you've described, put too much weight on on the shoulders of those young people to change the world?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: I think that young people have a lot of weight on their shoulders here, regardless of what, you know, parents and aunties and uncles and grandmas and grandpa are putting on their shoulders. You know, my friend Bill McKibben, one of the founders of three 5040.

MG: He was just on this program just last week.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Oh, cool. Well, below, he says, you know, he's always yelling at the boomers and the retirees and he's always like, hey, you know, go get arrested. It it literally doesn't matter anymore. Your career is done. You can you can go fight for justice and put your body on the line and give these let these young people go to university. And, you know, and I think he makes a really good point. But that said, you know, when I when I look in to my own community, the indigenous community, you know, our people still have a lot to overcome. You know, we're not living in a post-colonial context. You know, we're not living post racism. We're still stuck in the midst of it, you know, with neocolonial forms of colonisation, you know, sprouting up every day out of this capitalist economy, this extractive economy. And so indigenous young people have to be more sophisticated, more intelligent, more patient than ever. And so, you know, they do have the weight of the world on their shoulders. And it's not just, you know, fighting for for their fellow human being. Most indigenous people share a shared cosmology that we don't just speak for ourselves, but we speak for all of our plant and animal relatives that we share the biosphere with.

MG: Can I go back? I want to talk about Bill McKibben and something he said in a moment. But can I go back to something you said earlier, which is about the groundswell, particularly among young people in a range of things, And part of that is activism and politics. Some of the most powerful conversations we've had on this program in the last little while have been with young people from indigenous communities who are against many odds trying to wrap their arms around a language that is deeply under threat. Mm hmm. And that they see that as an act of of resistance and a really powerful act of resistance. What do you think is going on there? Why is it, why is now the moment that that that is unfolding?

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Because that's the most valuable thing. You know, linguists refer to indigenous languages as polymorphic, in other words, not written. You know, they're oral everything in our social systems, our Cosmo and worldview, our Cosmo vision, all of this information that we've accumulated over thousands of years of intentional observation of the sacred place for creator put our people have led to an immense wealth of ecological knowledge, knowledge of how to maintain and balance as an, you know, as an apex species at the top of the food chain, how to take care of the place where creator put us. You know, that's what Manitoba means, the sacred place where creator sat man to job. And, you know, and I think that, you know, indigenous peoples play this incredibly vital and crucial role in terms of how human beings are going to survive the existential threat of climate change. And that that that know how that, you know, step by step, how to process exists within our traditional ecological knowledge. And our languages are vessels that hold thousands of years of traditional ecological knowledge. And so when an indigenous language is forgotten, you know, has been forgotten or, you know, people stop speaking it, it should be compared to the burning of the libraries of Alexandria. And we lose a unique set of ecological know how in terms of how to take care of that specific place where that language comes from. Because this stuff is not written. It is. Passed down through ceremonies, through, you know, stories, through song. And I think that a lot of young people are connecting the dots and they hear the voices of their ancestors who are always with you no matter where you go. They hear those ancestors compelling them to pick up the language and, you know, not just to pick up the language, but also, you know, to get involved in that spiritual connection to the sacredness of Mother Earth through ceremony, through our culture. And there is a cultural revolution that is taking place across Canada and the United States and really the world over amongst indigenous young people. And we see that, especially in media, in the arts. You know, with with with indigenous filmmakers, actors, directors, writers, you know, putting out books, television series. Indigenous young people have figured out that we don't need white or Western intermediaries to translate our stories to the world, for the world to embrace them and to be empowered by them, to be motivated and activated by them on the issues that we face collectively today. And so young indigenous peoples, I think, carry a lot of weight, not just in society from older generations, but also amongst their fellow young peers, because, you know, indigenous peoples know how to adapt because we were forced to, you know, by climate change, we are forced to rapid adaptation. And I think that those are some of the the things that we're going to be sharing with our fellow human beings as the world's greatest migration continues to escalate in response to rising sea levels and the existential threat of climate change.

MG: When your friend Bill McKibben, longtime environmentalist, was on this program, he talked about how he's an optimist because. There is no other option. I mean, you essentially are an optimist and you keep fighting or you. What did he say? Sit on the porch with a bottle of whisky and just kind of watch the days go by? But he also said that we are not now in a position where you can prevent climate change or you can reverse climate change, that we need to figure out different strategies. And that's the kind of thing that could lead people away from optimism. I just wonder in the face of that, as an activist, as an environmental activist, how you cope with the reality of what we're up against when it comes to the climate emergency.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Well, I think that maybe, you know, maybe that's something that I take for granted as as a native man. You know, our world came to an end from a Western perspective. You know, 150 years ago, you know, with the birth of this country. And there's a lot of reason for Native people to feel hopeless. You know, given all of the things that happened and given all the things that continue to happen in our communities, you know, the things you listed in the the opening of our shared time today. And I think that, you know, that's what I'm talking about when I say that Native people, indigenous peoples. You know, we know how to adapt rapidly. You know, we understand the psychology of that. We understand the spiritual impact of that. We're continuing to pay that price today. And I think that that's part of the sacred bundle of teachings that we bring to the table of of minds and hearts that are, you know, have come together. And that will continue to come together trying to figure out, you know, how we're going to stem the worst impacts of climate change and to lift up and build community self-determination, which is where solutions to climate change are going to come from. It's not from big global compacts. It's from community self-determination, community innovation over things like water and sanitation, energy production, food production, etc.. And I think that, like I said, you know, that's that's that's part of what we bring to the table as indigenous peoples is to help people deal with the overwhelming ness of that reality that we're not going to stop climate change. We're just organising now to turn off the tap to stem the worst impacts. And I think that the only people were waiting for it to catch up at this point is the political establishment and of course the private sector extractive industry. But young people are connecting the dots everywhere I look, and I'm going to do everything in my power to support them to be successful.

MG: I was going to say, what do you see as your role in this? And are you comfortable in the wake of the work that you've done, but also this memoir that got a lot of attention and maybe people who didn't know you couldn't stop there had to listen to what you were saying. Are you comfortable in being somebody who. I mean, he's a leader.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Yeah. Well, you know, that's something that I'm figuring it out as I go. You know, kind of a fake it to you, make it kind of thing, you know, I'm not I'm not a young person anymore, nor am I an elder. You know, I'm 45, but I got two teenage kids. And, you know, I've been organising in the movement for 20 years. So I've learnt a couple of things. And one thing I definitely have learnt for sure is that you can't do this work in social movements, you know, organising and building power and self-determination in our communities from a place of hatred or anger. And that's what I did the majority of my adult life by driving, you know, instead of Hope fuel, it was like hate fuel, you know, against colonisation, you know, and everything violence that comes with it. And I just figured out through releasing this memoir and you know, that, that it was time for me to maybe take a step back to figure out a new way to show up for social movements and the emerging leadership that is coming up in social movements to find a way to support them in the most loving and helpful way. And, you know, so I'm figuring that out as I go, you know, So I step back from campaigning on the fossil fuel industry. I've been focussed on speaker tours and just travelling around Canada and having conversations with, you know, audiences about the 60,000 foot question What's it going to take for us to collectively move through and heal from the violence of colonisation? And you know, those conversations have been hard, but they've been extremely rich, very powerful, lots of young people coming to these talks and it's been filling me with hope and it's been helping me, I think, heal from a lot of the trauma that I've been carrying, you know, this collective experience that Native people have had growing up in these lands they call Canada. It comes with a lot of trauma and you have to be really active. I think for those in my generation and older to it's a daily, daily struggle to heal the wounds, to heal the scars that come with colonisation and then at the same time to be putting out, you know, love and support, you know, unconditional love to these young people that are coming up so that they have everything that they need to be successful.

MG: But to you, I mean one of my favourite phrases, hard things are hard. I mean in the hard work there is something that is that is gratifying, that is that is fuelling you in that work.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Yeah. Well, you know, just full circle coming back to my sons, that's what's fuelling me here. You know, they're just the most creative little artists. It's just incredible to see that, you know, the things that they do. You know, my one son, he plays guitar and the other one's a painter and I mean, they do a lot of other things, but just to see them, you know, and they're fearless not in there. Like, like, like they're fearless in the sense that they don't they, they talk to everybody, like, and look them straight in the eye kind of thing. They're not like bullies or anything like that. They're very kind children and they always fight for the underdog. And I just feel really pleased about, you know, about their temperament, because I know that by the time they get to my age, man, they're going to be just wild jet eyes. You know, something that I could have never imagined.

MG: I'd really look forward to the next time we have the chance to talk. In the meantime, it's great to have you back on our program. Thank you very much.

CLAYTON THOMAS-MÜLLER: Always a pleasure and talk again soon.

MG: ClaytonThomas-Mülleris an environmental activist, member of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation and the author of a great memoir called Life in the City of Dirty Water, a memoir of Healing. He was in our Winnipeg studio. This has been an interesting start to the New Year, talking with people about their reasons for optimism. If you would like to share your reason for optimism with us, send us an email thecurrent@cbc.ca. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

The feeling that I was getting from each new revelation of some new product was oppressive was one of resignation. And the experience wasn't what I grew up with, which was constantly looking forward to new innovations that brought me joy and excitement and hope about the future.

MG: Being a philosopher of technology, Shannon Vallor began to muse about what had changed for her and why technology had lost its lustre. We'll talk about what she found coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

Why one philosopher says technology has lost its joy

Guest: Shannon Vallor

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. It was a little less than 40 years ago when a man named Steve Jobs walked onto a stage and introduced a technology that it is no exaggeration to say, change the world.

SOUNDCLIP

STEVE JOBS: All of the images you are about to see on the large screen will be generated by what's in that bag.

[music, audience cheering]

MG: Very dramatic. The crowd went wild to see the small box with a little wired computer mouse on the side. It was the Apple Macintosh. And then Steve Jobs had one more trick up his sleeve.

SOUNDCLIP

SJ: Now, we've done a lot of talking about Macintosh recently. But today, for the first time ever, I'd like to let Macintosh speak for itself.

VOICE: Hello. I am Macintosh. It sure is great to get out of that bag.

[audience cheering]

MG: Those early days of the personal computer generated a huge amount of excitement, not just within the broader tech community, but among Apple's customers as well. And that's what new technology and innovation used to do for my next guest as well. Shannon Vallor says that tech used to be her happy place. She is a philosopher of technology, the Baillie Gifford chair in the Ethics of Data and Artificial Intelligence at the Edinburgh Futures Institute. And she wrote recently about the disenchantment she's feeling about technology now. And that clearly struck a chord. Shannon, Hello.

SHANNON VALLOR: Hi. Great to be here.

MG: Great to have you here. When did you realize that, as I say, technology was no longer your happy place?

SHANNON VALLOR: I think it had been creeping up on me for quite a while. When it really hit me was I was sitting on Twitter and looking at all of the new tech news that comes through my feed, and realizing that the feeling that I was getting from each new revelation of some new product or application, that the feeling I was getting was oppressive, was one of resignation. And the experience wasn't what I grew up with, which was constantly looking forward to new innovations, to new products, to new features and iterations of existing things that brought me joy and excitement and hope about the future. And I really had to stop and think, what is it that is at the root of this change in the way that I relate to technology? And so I posted about it on Twitter. It was just one of those moments that you have once in a while where you just post something that you've been thinking about. Within minutes, I realized it had struck a nerve and there were thousands of people liking, commenting, retweeting on the thread, sharing their own experiences that had very similar features to my own that clearly resonated. So it was really important, I think, to think about what has happened and what it means for us that our relationship with technology has moved into this phase of disenchantment.

MG: What were some of the things in past that brought you joy?

SHANNON VALLOR: In the thread, I referenced my experience growing up in the 1970s and seeing in the San Francisco Bay Area the shiny BART public transit, trains, the Concorde aeroplane, certainly, the space shuttle program. As a child, even the tragedies associated with it didn't really dim my joy for the prospects of space travel and just what it meant for science and technology and human progress more generally, or what I thought it meant. The experiences that I had moved into the nineties and the dawn of the internet, the spread of personal computing into mobile devices, the candy coloured Macintoshes that clearly brought aesthetic joy as well as utility. Even things like the original iPods that allowed you to carry your music library around with you and choose music in a way that we hadn't been able to do before. I think my joy was still there at that time. And one of the things I think all those technologies represented as diverse as they are from public transportation to personal mobile devices, is that technology still seemed to be for us. It still seemed to be for everybody potentially. And one of the things that I think came out in the thread and in the conversation that followed that is that many of us don't feel anymore like technology is for us. It's for a company that's trying to extract some value from us. We're no longer the beneficiaries of technology, or at least not the primary ones. We're the product itself. And I'm certainly not the first to say this, but I think it's important to think about how that changes the way we think about technology and the kind of hope that we have for the future. And that's really the source of my worry is I think it is dangerous for us to become alienated from technology in this way. I think for us to be disenchanted from technology cuts us off from something really important and something that we're going to need to depend upon to flourish in the very challenging decades and centuries to come for humanity. We need technology. We need to fall in love with it again. But I think technology has to become something different from what it is today for us to fall in love with it again.

MG: When you take a look at the technological innovations that are in front of you right now, what to you kind of highlights that coldness that you're talking about?

SHANNON VALLOR: Well, I think one of the straws that broke the camel's back, I think, was seeing the ads for the metaverse and the rhetoric around the metaverse that Meta was putting out. Of course, people were making fun of the lack of visual novelty or excitement in the graphics that were being advertised, the missing legs and so forth. But it was for me, more thinking about the possibilities of the metaverse that were being centred, which were about, you know, being able to attend meetings in the metaverse and having the kind of branded corporate experiences in the metaverse that we now have come to expect from the Internet. And there are so many other possibilities for what we can do online than, you know, branded and extractive experiences that just bring more of the same into a world where more data can be extracted from us. I was thinking about an ad that I had seen for the Roomba, paired with news that Roomba and its relationship with Amazon was potentially going to allow Roomba to send more data about our homes and our activities to Amazon. And of course, that's just a hypothetical, but it's a representation of the ways that our devices around us serve to pull value from us. And the value they give back seems increasingly marginal. The technologies that we have increasingly draw our attention away from what technologies used to be, which included things like public transportation, new forms of infrastructure that we all benefited from. We don't think of water plants and roads and trains, and certainly the United States anymore as the centre of what technology is about. We let lots of our infrastructure decay, in fact, while we pour investment into the kinds of data extracting devices that often no one's really asking for. That was another thing about the metaverse is people saying, who asked for this? Or NFTs and their connection, you know, with a very carbon intensive range of technologies associated with blockchain and crypto. The carbon footprint of many of these technologies makes it clear that they're not designed for the benefit of humanity. They're not designed to meet the most critical needs we have right now at this moment. And so I think we need to recenter what technology is for. Technology is a creative way of meeting our most urgent human needs. And if that's not still at the centre of what technology is, then we have to do something about it.

MG: Do you worry that some of this could be just nostalgia for, I mean, I remember those times too. I remember seeing, you know, my first street car, subway, when they launched the iPod, and I was able to take all my CDs and put them on the device and carry them around. That was a different time, and that wishing that the technology was different might be looking back at that time and feeling fondness for that moment itself. Do you worry about that?

SHANNON VALLOR: I think many people felt that it wasn't just nostalgia, right? It isn't just a sort of romantic attachment to the past, which might not be grounded in anything truly substantial. There's a clear eyed objective survey of the past and saying, in the past, technology gave us these things. And in the present, it doesn't anymore. And these are things we still need. These are things we still deserve. So I don't think it's just nostalgia, even though we're talking about something that was recognized as a gift of innovation in the past, that in the present we don't see or at least we don't see in the same way. There's still plenty of things to get excited about with technology. I don't want to deny that. And I still get hopeful about technology. But it does seem as if the hope is more desperately needing technology to begin to meet some of the needs that have been neglected for so long. Whether we're talking about climate tech and the need for greater public and private investment in that, whether we're talking about public health and the need to make things like vaccines, whether we're talking about the need for public transportation that's actually more affordable and more accessible. There's lots of different human needs that, frankly, are languishing in an era which is supposed to be the height of human creativity and innovation. And we need to look at the structural and institutional and economic reasons for that.

MG: As you mentioned, this started as a Twitter thread and then turned into an article. The responses on Twitter were extensive. We got in touch with one of the people who did respond to you on Twitter, Danilo Campos, a technologist in the northeastern United States. He volunteers at the local library helping older people with their tech and computer issues. Take a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

DANILO CAMPOS: One day, I had one of my regular clients come in, and she brought an inexpensive laptop that she'd purchased used. And she explained to me, like, Listen, this laptop, I just got it. And it feels like it shouldn't be quite this slow. I opened up the Windows Task manager, and what I found was you had all of these programs running, just starting up when the computer booted. Nobody asked for them. They weren't doing anything particularly productive, but they were gobbling up all of the processing power that the computer had so that you couldn't do anything else productively. It really was that slow. And what a really quick bit of searching revealed was that this was a problem that a lot of people were having with this particular laptop, the CPU being eaten up by a program that the manufacturer had installed on the machine. And they sell it with, you know, the fairly benign premise of, well, you're going to be able to get system updates. But what you're actually getting is the ability for the manufacturer to gather all kinds of data about you, gather information about how you're using the machine, and otherwise surveil you in some very aggregate way. I want to be really clear. I don't have any information that suggests that the manufacturer is directly spying on any particular person. But what they are doing is using up your computer's resources so that they can have just a little bit more information to shove into a spreadsheet to send marketing messages back to you. It was just a way for them to market to the consumer who had already spent money on the machine. So it's really frustrating because I work with people who are so smart. And then the people who build this technology are just changing things out from underneath them. They're doing things invisibly in a way that makes it really hard for the folks that I support. And so they get this sense that there's something wrong with them. They get a sense that there's something that they're doing wrong.

MG: Do you think that the companies that create this technology think about us the end users as they develop that technology?

SHANNON VALLOR: You know what's really funny about this, and I'm so glad that you asked that question, is one of the most striking things about the conversations in the thread of the Twitter post were the side conversations that started about what it's like to work in tech and design products, and encounter the institutional and organizational and systemic obstacles to designing tech that actually benefits and helps your customers or your users. And it really underscores the fact that this isn't just about nostalgia because there were so many comments from people who were engineers, who were developers who worked in product, who've actually confronted these obstacles within their own companies to delivering something that actually improves the user experience rather than drains it or diminishes it or makes it more difficult. And a lot of engineers and technologists in that thread were talking about the joy that they had lost in their work, and the motivations that they had lost because their own companies were incentivized to make things that were extractive rather than useful or beautiful or easy, or in other ways improving the welfare and experiences of the people on the other end of the tech. And no one, frankly, but a monster, and very few people in tech are monsters, no one but a monster actually wants to spend their own energies and their own intellect and their own creative talents on making life worse for other people. That's not why people go into tech.

MG: You said something interesting earlier, which is part of why this matters, that it's dangerous for us to become alienated from technology. Because you could imagine people who are listening saying, well, then don't buy the robot vacuum cleaner that's going to send your information to Amazon. Don't get involved in whatever service or app or device you're concerned about. What is the danger in us being alienated from our technology?

SHANNON VALLOR: Well, there's a couple of dangers. I mean, one is, I think, understood broadly, technology is fundamental to being human. And so I think becoming alienated from something that's that fundamental to the kind of creatures that we are is very dangerous and sad. The other thing is that we are eight billion people on a planet with diminishing resources and growing needs. We desperately need new technologies in order to sustain human civilization, much less improve it. And there's no way we can meet the needs of eight billion people on this planet without great leaps in new technologies. And that means an investment not just of material resources and wealth, but investment of human creativity, of imagination and of our energies and our joy. And if we fall out of love with technology, we fall out of love with a fundamental way that we need to flourish together. Technology doesn't solve all our problems, but we can't live well without technology either. And I think it would be devastating for humanity if we allow technology to be alienated from our way of caring for ourselves and one another. I think technology fundamentally carries a moral impulse to improve the human condition. And when people talk like that now, it sounds idealistic. And I think we have to come back to a place where talking about technology as a way of fundamentally improving the human condition and meeting human needs isn't idealistic, but expected.

MG: Is your sense that there is any interest within Silicon Valley and the broader tech industry to change that approach? Or is the focus purely on extracting my data to help fund an advertising company?

SHANNON VALLOR: No, that's just it. I've met countless people in tech who feel this very deeply because they see it from the inside, and they themselves, as I mentioned, encounter some of the obstacles to fulfilling the promise of their own technological, you know, capacities and inventiveness. And so I think what we have to talk about is the fact that this isn't a matter of bad people with bad intentions. These are structural problems having to do with the incentives that we've created within our economy for corporations, because at the end of the day, people have to do the things at work that they feel will allow them to continue to use their talents. And so the things that will get them promoted, the things that will allow them to be put on new projects are the metrics and the incentives that their company recognizes. And so we have to align those incentives and those metrics so that the people who actually build technologies that improve the human condition are precisely the ones who are getting promoted, the ones who are getting respect, the ones who are getting praise from their managers. And we have to incentivize that at higher levels of the company. We have to make sure that boards, the investors, that shareholders aren't incentivized to drain a company of the potential it has to help us live better, and instead, convert that potential into short term gains that actually leave people worse off and disenchanted with the technology and its possibilities. And I think that's what's happening, is that you have lots of people who can understand the need to fall in love with technology again and the need for change, but who look at the current incentives and say, yes, but I still have to, at the end of the day, meet my targets. And my targets are monetization. My targets are, you know, the ability to extract a constant stream of data and revenue from customers, whether or not that's benefiting them. So we have to be able to think about what are the incentives at the top driving those decisions and how can we change them.

MG: Just before I let you go, what is one technological innovation that excites you still, that to you kind of captures everything that you felt before?

SHANNON VALLOR: That's a great question, and I don't think that I necessarily could name one technology that captures all of that. I'm still excited about the possibilities in biomedicine to address kind of long standing causes of human suffering that we can do something about, whether we're talking about new experimental treatments for cancer or the new advances we've made in malaria treatment. The COVID vaccine is still an incredible, incredible achievement. And I think, you know, biomedicine is something where I still have a great deal of enthusiasm and hope for the future. I think climate tech and sort of starting to see the ways that we might make some real advances in clean energy, whether we're talking about, you know, nuclear fusion containment or whether we're talking about the kinds of advances that we see in decoding the structures of proteins that might allow us to develop new kinds of biomedical innovations or new kinds of materials and substances that can meet some of the public health and climate challenges that are facing us. There's a vast array of new technologies that excite me. But I think that we cannot simply assume that technology will come back to meeting human needs. I think the incentives currently are for technology to continue to take from us more than it gives. And we need to turn that around and we need to do it now.

MG: Shannon Vallor, I'm glad to talk to you. Thank you very much.

SHANNON VALLOR: Thank you.

MG: Shannon Vallor is a philosopher of technology at the Edinburgh Futures Institute. That's The Current for this Monday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. Before we go, as Shannon was saying, some new tech may have lost its lustre, but there is new artificial intelligence tool that's taking the world by storm. It's called ChatGPT. We spoke about it on this program not so long ago. It's set off a huge argument in academia, in part because this software can write human like essays, books, poems and apparently, songs. Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas was speaking at the World Economic Forum about the potential he sees in this technology for creators.

SOUNDCLIP

WILL.I.AM: I think ChatGPT is awesome. I think it's going to be a great co-pilot for creatives. Hopefully it raises the bar on everyone's creativity. Now you have something else that's that responsive. You can push it and it will push you. I think it's awesome. It's like asking a mathematician, hey, what do you think about this thing called the calculator?

MG: That's the sunny side of the street. Apparently, not everyone is as optimistic. A fan of the musician Nick Cave used ChatGPT to imitate Nick Cave's songwriting style. Said Fan fed the algorithm Cave's songs and the algorithm spat back its own creation. Nick was sent the AI’s song, and let's just say he was not enthused. He wrote to the fan, Mark, who created it. “Mark, The apocalypse is well on its way. This song sucks.” He goes on to say that you need human emotions to write a good song. Pain, suffering, love, joy, etc. And then closes the letter with “thanks for the song. But with all the love and respect in the world, this song is a grotesque mockery of what it is to be human. And well, I don't much like it. Although, hang on, rereading it, there is a line there that speaks to me. ‘I've got the fire of hell in my eyes.’ And that's kind of true. I've got the fire of hell in my eyes, and it's ChatGPT. Love, Nick.” There you have it. Nick Cave, not a fan of chatGPT. Although that idea of the fire of hell in my eyes could be at the heart of a Nick Cave song if you think about it. Here is a song that he actually wrote. Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds And I Let Love In. I’m Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: “I Let Love In” by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Monday January 23, 2023 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This