Red Deer Man to Lecture Max Planck PhDs in Germany

Todayville is pleased to announce that our own Agriculture TV producer, Nick Saik, has been invited to speak to many of Europe’s leading PhDs at the famous Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology in Potsdam-Golm Germany.

As a featured speaker at the Plants and People Conference 2019 in September, Nick has been invited to discuss effective science and agricultural communication –something he has proven very successful at despite him doing so during an era of divisiveness. And to think that it all started with an argument with his father.

Nick was a hippy filmmaker working in Vancouver on fairly shallow, big budget Hollywood fare when his former farmboy father suggested that he come home to tell the story of modern agriculture. There was only one problem. Nick didn’t believe in the approaches of modern agriculture.

Sharing a healthy respect for science, that lead the TEDTalk agricultural expert that advises everyone from Bill Gates to African Presidents to challenge his son: prove me wrong.

That challenge led to a lot of learning and several highly involved trips around the world. Nick met with the scientists and farmers who were directly engaged in the innovations necessary to feed the world’s growing population. The father’s strategy was wise.

“I had no business even having an opinion about something I knew so little about back then,” says the younger Saik when referring to his previous self. “Today my main advantage is my ignorant humility. It’s a healthy place to work from.”

A handcam provided for Nick Saik’s early start in the field of communications.

That is what the young Albertan has to offer Europe’s leading scientists: He can not only show lay people how to do meaningful research, even more importantly he can actually model the behaviour of someone who will change their mind if the evidence is good.

Today’s brain science is quite clear: that is not a natural inclination for human beings. We are impacted by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and are very often little more than creatures of habit.

“The best way to change someone’s mind is to let them change it themselves,” says Saik. In a world where most seek only to reinforce their existing opinions, Nick’s willingness to be naive and open is at the heart of why he has become so popular as a science and agriculture educator and public speaker.

His unique position as neither a scientist, nor farmer, nor activist allows him to genuinely represent the average person’s perspective because, like him, most people are none of those things.

“There’s an awareness in science that it accidentally became a closed shop. It wasn’t very friendly when it came to dumb questions. But I ask a lot of dumb questions myself, so instead of dismissing people’s concerns I actually share them, so I look into them and then share what I learn. And it turns out people like that.”

Nick is good at modelling respect, and at helping people understand each other. His Facebook page may have the most respectful and informative comment section on that entire platform.

In a world of binary, either-or thinking, Nick uses everything from LEGO to musical styles to help explain and/or analogize the essence behind what could otherwise be complex ideas. He’s even funny, having had single videos that, in their various forms and on their various channels, have been seen over 50 million times.

Supported by a large cast of farmers and scientists that are perpetually adding to his knowledge, Nick continues to learn every week. That was ultimately why he came to call his company KNOW IDEAS MEDIA. (Even the logo shows two distinct circles of thought being tied together by communication. He’s as earnest as they come.) Click the Know Ideas Media banner below to see Nick’s stories on Todayville Agriculture.

The company’s principles of optimism, reason, science, respect and maybe most importantly, compassion may be just what agriculture needs. In a world divided by many people shouting many points of opposition, voices of clarity, unity and cooperation are like a breath of fresh air. It that context it makes sense that a voice of reason in Red Deer was heard as far away as the most hallowed halls of Europe.

Respectful and informative exchange. If it seems too simple, we only need to remember that it was that very approach that lead Nick Saik all the way from the shallows of Hollywood fare to the meaningful depths of discussing food security at one of the leading educational institutions on Earth.

If he keeps this up, Nick’s ignorant humility might just lead him to follow in his father’s footsteps. He too may one day be advising billionaires and world leaders, and that’s pretty impressive for a guy who’s claim to fame is that he is ‘just one of us.’

Related Topics:communication feature Nick Saik speech

Up Next

Five new access points to river now open

Don't Miss

ETS detours on 97 Street begin August 6 for LRT construction

Scott McPherson

Follow Author

The History of Evolution: from Darwin to DNA

Uncategorized / 5 years ago

Red Deer Man to Lecture Max Planck PhDs in Germany

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations

Published on November 19, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tom Flanagan

When Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, he memorably said that the welfare of Indigenous Canadians was his highest priority. He certainly has delivered on his promise, at least in terms of shovelling out money.

During his 10 years in office, budgeted Indigenous spending has approximately tripled, from about $11 billion to almost $33 billion. Prime Minister Trudeau’s instruction to the Department of Justice to negotiate rather than litigate class actions has resulted in paying tens of billions of dollars to Indigenous claimants over alleged wrongs in education and other social services. And his government has settled specific claims—alleged violations of treaty terms or of the Indian Act—at four times the previous rate, resulting in the award of at least an additional $10 billion to First Nations government.

But has this avalanche of money really helped First Nations people living on reserves, who are the poorest segment of Canadian society?

One indicator suggests the answer is yes. The gap between reserves and other communities—as measured by the Community Well-Being Index (CWB), a composite of income, employment, housing and education—fell from 19 to 16 points from 2016 to 2021. But closer analysis shows that the reduction in the gap, although real, cannot be due to the additional spending described above.

The gain in First Nations CWB is due mainly to an increase in the income component of the CWB. But almost all of the federal spending on First Nations, class-action settlements and specific claims do not provide taxable income to First Nations people. Rather, the increase in income documented by the CWB comes from the greatly increased payments legislated by the Liberals in the form of the Canada Child Benefit (CCB). First Nations people have a higher birth rate than other Canadians, so they have more children and receive more (on average) from the Canada Child Benefit. Also, they have lower income on average than other Canadians, so the value of the CCB is higher than comparable non-Indigenous families. The result? A gain in income relative to other Canadians, and thus a narrowing of the CWB gap between First Nations and other communities.

There’s an important lesson here. Tens of billions in additional budgetary spending and legal settlements did not move the needle. What did lead to a measurable improvement was legislation creating financial benefits for all eligible Canadian families with children regardless of race. Racially inspired policies are terrible for many reasons, especially because they rarely achieve their goals in practise. If we want to improve life for First Nations people, we should increase opportunities for Canadians of all racial backgrounds and not enact racially targeted policies.

Moreover, racial policies are also fraught with unintended consequences. In this case, the flood of federal money has made First Nations more dependent rather than less dependent on government. In fact, from 2018 to 2022, “Own Source Revenue” (business earnings plus property taxes and fees) among First Nations bands increased—but not as much as transfers from government. The result? Greater dependency on government transfers.

This finding is not just a statistical oddity. Previous research has shown that First Nations who are relatively less dependent on government transfers tend to achieve higher living standards (again, as measured by the CWB index). Thus, the increase in dependency presided over by the Trudeau government does not augur well for the future.

One qualification: this finding is not as robust as I would like because the number of band governments filing reports on their finances has drastically declined. Of 630 First Nation governments, only 260 filed audited statements for fiscal 2022. All First Nations are theoretically obliged by the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, 2013, to publish such statements, but the Trudeau government announced there would be no penalties for non-compliance, leading to a precipitous decline in reporting.

This is a shame, because First Nations, as they often insist, are governments, not private organizations. And like other governments, they should make their affairs visible to the public. Also, most of their income comes from Canadian taxpayers. Both band members and other Canadians have a right to know how much money they receive, how it’s being spent and whether it’s achieving its intended goals.

Author:

Tom Flanagan

Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Distinguished Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary

Uncategorized

Musk, Ramaswamy to lead Trump efforts to cut waste, fraud in federal government

Published on November 13, 2024

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

During his campaign, Ramaswamy proposed cutting 75% of the federal workforce. Musk recently suggested that he could cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, or about one-third of total U.S. spending.

President-elect Donald Trump picked Tesla CEO Elon Musk and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a newly created Department of Government Efficiency.

The department’s acronym, DOGE, is a nod to Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, dogecoin. Trump said the new group will pave the way for his administration to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulation, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

Trump laid out lofty goals for the group in his announcement this week.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhatten Project,’ of our time,” Trump’s announcement said. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

It won’t be an official government agency, which will likely allow Musk and Ramaswamy to avoid public financial disclosures.

Trump said the change he’s looking for won’t come from within the existing federal government.

“To drive this kind of change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside the government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform and create and entrepreneurial approach to government never seen before,” the announcement noted.

Trump said he looks forward to what Musk and Ramaswamy can accomplish.

“Importantly, we will drive out the massive waste and fraud which exists throughout our annual $6.5 trillion of government spending,” he said.

Trump also gave them a deadline: July 4, 2026.

“A smaller government, with more efficiency and less bureaucracy will be the perfect gift to America” on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, according to the announcement.

Ramaswamy, who dropped out the race for the GOP nomination to endorse Trump in January, has previously proposed significant cuts. During his campaign, Ramaswamy proposed cutting 75% of the federal workforce.

Musk recently suggested that he could cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, or about one-third of total U.S. spending. He’s been tossing out ideas on X, previously Twitter before Musk bought the company and changed the name.

“The world is suffering slow strangulation by overregulation. Every year, the noose tightens a little more,” Musk wrote in a post on X on Wednesday. “We finally have a mandate to delete the mountain of choking regulations that do not serve the greater good.”

Musk also said he isn’t a threat to democracy, but a threat to bureaucracy.

DOGE already has an X account. It’s first post: “Working overtime to ensure your tax dollars will be spent wisely!”

Some budget experts have called Musk’s pledge to cut $2 trillion a pipe dream, noting that many of the problems DOGE wants to address have proven intractable.

Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute think tank, called Musk’s proposal “a random number unattached to reality.”

Marc Goldwein, the senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said it could be done with 10 aggressive policies, mostly focused on Medicare and Medicaid.

“The government can legitimately save trillions over a decade by reducing waste and improving efficiency – and I hope we do,” Goldwein wrote on X. “Achieving these savings requires major changes to how and how much we pay for health care.”

Medicare (annual cost of about $1 trillion) is a federal health insurance program for people 65 or older, and some people younger than 65 with certain disabilities or conditions. Medicaid (annual cost of about $558 billion) is a joint federal and state program that helps cover medical costs for some people with limited income and resources.

The Government Accountability Office, which serves as the research arm of Congress, estimated annual fraud losses cost taxpayers between $233 billion and $521 billion annually, in a report in April. The fraud estimate’s range represents 3% to 7% of average federal obligations. The Office of Management and Budget publicly questioned that estimate, calling it “not plausible.”

“OMB has significant concerns that this report will not further efforts to prevent and reduce fraud, but rather will create confusion and promote misleading generalizations that have no factual connection to specific federal programs,” Jason Miller, the deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, wrote of OMB concerns in a three-page letter to officials with the Government Accountability Office.

On the campaign trail, Ramaswamy detailed his plan to reduce the federal workforce by 75% during an event at the America First Policy Institute in Washington in 2023.

Ramaswamy said he would shutter the FBI (about 35,000 employees); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms a nd Explosives (5,099 employees); the U.S. Department of Education (about 4,200 employees); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (about 3,000 employees); and the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Services (about 1,500 employees).

Under Ramaswamy’s campaign plan, some 15,000 FBI employees would be moved to other agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Secret Service, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Drug Enforcement Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency, and Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

Some groups called the Department of Government Efficiency goals a stretch. Others had more pointed things to say.

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, a progressive consumer advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader, said the government agencies and regulations Ramaswamy proposed cutting are in place to protect people.

“The purpose of government regulations is to protect the American people,” she said in a statement. “We all depend on these regulations to protect our air, water, workers, children’s safety, and so much more. ‘Cutting red tape’ is shorthand for getting rid of the safeguards that protect us in order to benefit corporate interests.”