Now that Rogers is back in full operation, let us look back at their breakdown and recognize it for what it was — a major and very inconvenient hiccup. Instead of simply unleashing our collective outrage on Rogers (and yes, Rogers should compensate businesses for their loss of revenue), let us look at the failure both as a reminder and a lesson, not only on how reliant we are on technology, but even more importantly how vulnerable we all are to its breakdown. Imagine the disastrous outcome we would have faced had this been a breakdown in our energy (water, hydro and natural gas) or fuel delivery (vehicle and aviation) sectors. Let us also remember that in a pinch, we were still able to rely on old “outdated” technology (e.g. cash!) to help carry us through the crisis. We should use this disruption as a springboard to gather the brightest of minds to collectively figure out how to protect our vital systems from loss, either by breakdown or attack, how to build a redundant backup of these systems, and how to keep our older systems in good repair, thus turning the Rogers fiasco into an opportunity to protect our future safety and security.
(A cool head prevailing is important, and we can’t argue with the notion of how necessary it is to ensure our systems are protected. Let’s not be naive to the fact there are foreign bad actors who won’t hesitate to damage our systems at the push of a few buttons)
An interesting phenomenon occurred when landline, internet and cable went down. I actually had to have face-to-face conversations with family, friends and neighbours. Could this be a new form of communication? Think about it.
Re “The great reset is back to fossil fuels” (Editorial, July 10): It’s no longer prudent to have all or even most infrastructure reliant on such traditional sources of power, regardless of — or, maybe, due to — collective humankind’s vulnerable overreliance on planet-warming fossil fuels. But if the universal availability of a renewable-energy alternative, such as mass solar-energy harvestation, would come at the expense of the traditional “energy” production companies’ large profits, one can expect obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. If something notably conflicts with long-held and deeply entrenched corporate interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, often successfully. And, of course, there will be those who will reject the renewable-energy type/concept altogether, perhaps solely following the illogical idea that if it was possible, it would have been patented already and made a few people superfluously rich. In the meantime, assuming fossil fuel industry CEOs are not foolish enough to actually believe that their descendants will somehow always evade the health repercussions related to their industry’s environmentally reckless decisions, I wonder whether the unlimited-profit objective/nature is somehow irresistible to those businesspeople, including the willingness to allow an already threatened consumer base to continue to be so, if not threatened even more?
Frank Sterle Jr.
White Rock, B.C.
(But our natural resources sector and don’t act recklessly. We have endless regulations in this country they must adhere to — some probably too stringent. However, industry follows them)