Sat Feb 25, 11am-1pm EST (Toronto, New York)

Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033

Natural disasters are responsible for, on average, 0.1% of all deaths or approximately 45000 people, annually. As many of the major killers (earthquake, large storms, volcanic eruptions) are sporadic, the number of deaths can be very low – often less than 10,000, and accounting for as low as 0.01% of total deaths. But we also see the devastating impact of shock events: the 1983-85 famine and drought in Ethiopia; the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami; Cyclone Nargis which struck Myanmar in 2008; and the 2010 Port-au-Prince earthquake in Haiti. Each of these events pushed annual global disasters deaths over 200,000 – more than 0.4% of deaths in these years.

The good news: the world has seen a significant reduction in disaster deaths through earlier prediction, more resilient infrastructure, emergency preparedness, and response systems. It has been almost 60 years since natural disaster deaths topped 500,000 in any year and most years fall under the 20,000 mark.

The bad news: human impacts from natural disasters are not fully captured in mortality rates. Injury, homelessness, and displacement can all have a significant impact on populations. These effects can create situations that lead to famine, disease outbreaks, violence and wars.

More bad news: Climate change effects are creating more intense storms and more extreme temperatures that produce droughts, landslides and wildfires, and coupled with rising sea levels, more widespread flooding.

Even more bad news: Natural disasters are not the disasters that Canada is most susceptible to. Our highly integrated society is even more vulnerable to industrial accidents, transportation accidents, chemical spills and criminal or terrorist attacks. These can cause serious disruptions to food, fuel or energy delivery with serious personal consequences.

Those at low incomes are often the most vulnerable to disaster events: improving living standards, infrastructure and response systems in these regions will be key to preventing deaths from natural disasters in the coming decades. But beyond deaths, natural disasters create huge monetary costs to all societies that eat up money available for all other endeavours. The poorer the country, the more natural disaster response costs bite into core expenditures that affect citizens’ quality of life.

Questions:
1. What is Canada’s responsibility to the global community for disaster preparedness and response? What justifies this level?
2. Even though Canada’s vulnerability to natural disasters is low, there are these other disaster situations for which we need to be prepared. What dislocations have you thought about and prepared for?
3. Have you been through any form of natural disaster yourself? What lessons did you learn?

Sat Feb 18, 11am-1pm EST (Toronto, New York)

Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033
In-Person: The 519, 519 Church Street, Room 301Toronto, ON, M4Y 2C9

Humanists’ and fellow travelers’ (Atheists, Secularists, Freethinkers, Agnostics and Skeptics) “spidey-sense” tingles when they hear the term “spiritual”, connecting it with a world of gods and magical thinking that they have either never been a part of or have possibly struggled over long periods to disentangle themselves from. The idea of spirituality may also suggest unwanted links to people with no formal denomination yet still believe many of the precepts of one of more of the major religions.

Nevertheless, there are many, including myself, who feel there is an important arena of personal emotional and intellectual inquiry that rests on top of day-to-day experience as an attitude or a feeling that is still completely natural and non-theistic. And with Religion dominant and pervasive, even in a country as secular as Canada, the words that we would typically use to describe this space are also from religious traditions: spiritual, sacred, soulful, transcendent.

The question is, should we Humanists et al cut ourselves off from an area of personal inquiry and development that the vast majority of our species find key to survival and thriving, just because we are uncomfortable with the words used to define it?

Discussion Points:
The word “spirit” comes from the Latin for “breath”. With humans and many other animals that we might commonly see, breathing is the most obvious and outward sign of life. Through this connection, the breath can be viewed as an animating force. In a religious context, the breath (i.e. life) is a gift from god or may even be seen as a part of god inserted into our material existences (the soul) to give us life. But for Humanists et al, we make no such theistic attribution yet we still may ask the question “What gives us life?” or “What makes us feel alive?” This could be one way to approach Secular Spirituality.

When we use a term like “the spirit of the law”, what does the word “spirit” imply? Here we may be talking about the core, the essence, the deeper meaning, etc. How could this definition help us understand Secular Spirituality?

One definition of Secular Spirituality is “that which enhances the personal growth, sense of connection and inner peace of the individual but is not about a relationship with the divine.” Do you work and play in this space, looking for growth, connection and peace in your life?

There are times in our lives when we feel most ALIVE - when all of our senses are heightened, our experiences feel more significant and everything about us seems to be perfectly in-tune with our world. Some find this feeling by going inward into what some call “Flow States” (total immersion) or being Present. Some experience this feeling looking outwardly with expansiveness and a greater connection as Transcendence. How could the exploration of such states fit into a concept of Secular Spirituality?

Can we think of a better term than “Secular Spirituality” that does not lean on religious traditions and is without religious connotations yet still captures the feeling and nature of the concept?

We encounter the same issues for a term like “soulful” as we do for “spiritual” yet we can still use soulful metaphorically without having any belief in the religious concept of a soul. If we think of a soul as the part of ourselves that needs to nurtured for us feel most alive, what is your SOUL FOOD?

How can this concept of Secular Spirituality help us reconcile and connect with the many believers in our lives who have a religious spirituality? Is this just a very human endeavor with a different set of assumptions and attributions?

Ritual - Watch the first 5:25 of this video by Sasha Sagan talking about her book “For Small Creatures Such As We…”. What do you think of her conception of Secular Spirituality and the place of ritual within it?

Gather your thoughts then join us for an interesting discussion.

Today’s presentation will be a virtual meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033

In today’s talk in honour of Charles Darwin’s 214th birthday, Victor Provenzano, Stanford University doctoral student will be presenting MAJOR SOLUTIONS TO THE GLOBAL FOOD AND WATER CRISIS and how these solutions will aid us in addressing climate change and biodiversity loss.

Victor Provenzano is an ABD (All But Dissertation) from Stanford University where two of his mentors were the major eco-thinkers Michel Serres (author of The Natural Contract and world renowned philosopher) and Jean-Pierre Dupuy (head of the CREA at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris).

Victor has published a scholarly article at Johns Hopkins and an article entitled "The Intermittency of Wind and Solar” in CleanTechnica, whose editor in chief, Zachary Shahan, had this to say in his online introduction, "The article “knocks it out of the park"...It might well be my favorite article ever published on CleanTechnica." This last article made it to the website of the UK Ministry of Energy and Climate. Victor was also cited at length in an article by Mr. Shahan on the website of Climate Progress (an offshoot of ThinkProgress) and was interviewed on the radio by the host of The Many Shades of Green.

Victor has a LEED credential (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design) and, in 2009, he wrote a renewable energy plan for Bill Thompson, the Democratic mayoral candidate, in his race against Michael Bloomberg.

Victor is currently writing a book of solutions to the water, food, and climate crisis containing hundreds of synergistic solutions to each of these three major global ecological crises.

Today’s presentation will be a Hybrid meeting with online and in-person options.
Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033
Join us in-person at The 519, 519 Church Street, Rm 301

As we near the end of the reading of the 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it may be good to reflect on what we’ve read and consider our what it means practically:
1. As citizens, residents and contributors to Canada’s daily life, what is our responsibility to the cause of Reconciliation?
2. Who is responsible for implementing the Calls to Action, and who is responsible to make sure that they are implemented?
3. What are the ethical aspects of Reconciliation?
4. What are the potential gains to moving through this process? What are the costs?
5. What are the costs of dragging our collective feet on Reconciliation?
6. What should the priorities be in implementing Reconciliation?
7. How should progress in Reconciliation be measured?
8. What are the consequences of achieving, or not achieving, Reconciliation?

Hope you can join us for this interesting discussion.

Today’s presentation will be a virtual meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033

Imagine a 40-year-old man who believes in Santa Claus. When people tell him Santa is just part of a kids fairy tale, the man says, "Oh, yeah?" Go ahead, then - prove there is no Santa Claus!"

Santa plus the multiple stories of gods and virgins and prophets and ghosts, and witches, black cats, cracked mirrors, spooky ladders, zombies, lucky animal feet (dead ones of course), plants that watch you, dead people coming for dinner and Bigfoot and his schmexie girlfriend, Nessie roaming forests and dipping in lakes since before whenever - is there a chance any of them are actually real?

Then there's prayers. To pray is to ask for something. Like when you ask your boss for the afternoon off and pray for a yes before asking and while waiting for a response. When your boss says, yes to time off you thank the god for listening and processing then maybe promise the god you'll feed a homeless person.

-When did the idea of praying begin?
-Can it be considered meditation?
Is believing in the supernatural (gods/ghosts etc.) harmless?
Let’s discuss. Won’t you join us?

Today’s presentation will be a Hybrid meeting with online and in-person options.
Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033
Join us in-person at The 519, 519 Church Street, Rm 301

In 1978, gay rights activist Harvey Milk gave an impassioned plea: “Every gay person must come out.” In the decades that followed, more and more Americans started coming out to their loved ones, some galvanized or even outed against their wishes by the AIDS epidemic.

Then, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the growing visibility of gay people in popular culture began to trigger a major shift in attitudes, social scientists said. By then, comedian Ellen DeGeneres had come out as gay, the NBC sitcom “Will & Grace” had taken off and Americans started seeing more examples of gay people in popular culture. Suddenly, all the gay people who had always lived in their social sphere were “visible”. Gay people felt more empowered to be visible and those around them also felt empowered to see what was always there. With the stigma of homosexuality reduced, everything about homosexuality could now be brought into the light and discussed. Myths were busted. Pains were shared. The LGBTQ community had found its voice and place within society and hundreds of thousands of people were standing up to ensure there would be no backsliding.

In 15 years from 2004 to 2019, attitudes on Gay Marriage, the bell-weather LGBTQ issue, flipped in North America from 60+ percent of the population against to 60+ percent in favour. The campaign to be Out and Proud made a huge difference to societal attitudes about the LGBTQ community.

Could a similar campaign make a difference for Humanism and its “fellow traveller” identities (atheist, agnostic, secular, freethinker, skeptic)?
NOTE: for the purpose of this write-up, I will use Humanism as an umbrella identity encompassing Humanist, Atheist, Freethinker, Agnostic, Skeptic and Secular. The alphabet designation HAFASS immediately springs to mind but, for obvious reasons, I hope someone can do better.
Are you living your life as Openly Humanist?
Do you regularly use Humanist as one of your identifiers?
Do all those important to you know you as a Humanist and know what this means to you?
Why would you want to live life as Openly Humanist?
What’s Stopping You?
How can you overcome what’s stopping you and live more openly?
What do you think of all this? What are your thoughts? Come to the meeting and express yourself.

Today’s presentation will be a virtual meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033

I was born into an unhappy family and so grew up mistrustful of people and with no understanding of friendship. As I grew older, maybe wiser, with help from therapy, I began to feel less mistrustful and more appreciative of people. In 1990 I met two women at a Tai Chi class, and we became fast friends. We were the three Musketeers. We celebrated every holiday and birthday, went to Tai Chi together, met weekly and socialized with our respective partners. In 2005 one friend died. A fellow choir member knew her stepson so asked me to give him my condolences. I said sure but what about me? She apologized; said she had never lost a friend so did not understand. You can buy a condolence card for every family member but not for a friend. Seems to me our culture does not value friendship highly enough.

Friend is a word like love, used to cover a range of experiences. HAT strives to create a community of friendship and many members have expanded their HAT connections beyond HAT activities into a deeper friendship, but I am not sure these can compare with a 30 plus year friendship.
For many, their life partner is their best friend but, for those of us who do not have a loving partner or a supportive family, deep friendships are especially important. I have a fridge magnet that says “Friends are family you choose yourself”.

So, my questions:
Do we live in a culture that doesn't value friendship?
Are friends Important to you? How is this demonstrated?
How do you define a friend?
Are women better at friendship than men?
What makes a good friend?
Are you a good friend to someone? What unique role do you feel you fill for them?
How has friendship changed over recent years?

Sat Feb 25, 11am-1pm EST (Toronto, New York)

Today’s presentation will be a Hybrid meeting with online and in-person options.
Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033
Join us in-person at The 519, 519 Church Street, Rm 301

Growing up in New York in the 1960s and 1970s, national television news consisted of the evening news broadcast on the three networks. The two local stations covered local stories. Print news consisted of newspapers and news magazines, most notably, the daily New York Times, and Sunday New York Times, with its New York Times magazine. Although some charged the media with having a “liberal bias,” CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite was called “the most trusted man in America.” His comment that the Vietnam war was “unwinnable” (made while he was covering the war live from Vietnam), played an important role in the development of the anti-war movement.

Investigative journalism was (and still is) a central function of the press. The New York Times and the Washington Post published excerpts from and reported on the content of the Pentagon Papers. This was another key element in the anti-war movement and bringing an end to the war. Two young reporters at the Washington Post broke the Watergate story. Their reporting ultimately led to the fall of a sitting President. The Boston Globe broke the story of widespread Catholic priest child sexual abuse. Knight Ridder (which has many newspapers) broke the story of the falsity of the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Today, with cable TV and the internet, we have numerous sources of information. We now have to decide among numerous sources which ones to trust and which ones to ignore. Which ones are objective and which ones are partisan. Which stories are about what really happened and which ones are spreading conspiracy theories. We have to do this amidst charges of “fake news” and assertion of “alternative facts.” This raises several questions for us to consider:
1) What sources of information are reliable?
2) How can we discern between reliable and questionable sources?
3) Where can we find investigative journalism today?
4) What role does the media play in our society and democracy today?
5) How can we challenge unreliable sources?
6) Should there be any preference as a source of information among print, television, and online media?