��������

13 students and 2 community members participated. Fact checking was performed by �������� Sustainability using multiple sources that were peer reviewed or written by a qualified authority on the subject. 

Statement 1: "AI produces net positive effects on society" (statement posed by moderator)

Positions: 1 Disagree, 3 Slightly Agree, 1 Agree → 2 shifted to more neutral or less strong agreement after discussion.

Key Points:

• Supportive views: AI improves productivity, helps non-native English speakers, advances research, and enhances accessibility.
• Concerns: Potential for bias, job displacement, and ethical misuse (e.g., unregulated development, content moderation).
• Nuance: Several participants acknowledged both benefits and drawbacks, noting that the impact depends on regulation and usage.

Fact-check:

• True: AI enhances research and communication and is increasingly integrated into everyday tasks (like Excel in the past).
• Also true: Concerns about bias and regulation are well-founded; numerous studies show AI systems can reflect or amplify existing societal biases.

Sources: 

Statement 2: "We should limit our population for the good of the planet" (statement posed by moderator)

Positions: 2 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Slightly Agree → 2 participants switched positions after discussion.

Key Points:

• Against limitation: Concerns over ethics, eugenics, and enforcement; better sex education and resource access seen as natural ways to reduce population growth, since populations will naturally decrease as they become more wealthy and have a better quality of life.
• In favor: Acknowledged environmental strain from large populations but questioned feasibility and fairness of any enforced limits.
• Debate on development models: Some questioned the universal applicability of models like the , often based on data from Global North, wealthier, developed countries.

Fact-check:

• Population growth can strain resources and ecosystems, but growth rates are already declining globally, especially where education and healthcare improve, and a large share of GHG emissions are from high-income, low-fertility countries not those from high-fertility low-income countries.
• The , developed in the 20th century (not the 1800s), is widely used but has limitations when applied to diverse global contexts as there are complex factors such as migration, political, cultural, policy, and economic developments.

Sources: 

Statement 3: "People who are above a BMI who are morbidly obese should be mandated to exercise more" (statement posed by participant)

Positions: 2 Neutral, 5 Strongly Disagree

Key Points:

• Opposition: Concerns over bodily autonomy, systemic causes of obesity (e.g., socioeconomic status, food access), genetic causes of obesity, and inconsistent logic (e.g., why not mandate smoking cessation too?).
• Minor support: Reference to health monitoring in Japan (the "Metabo Law") as a possible model.
• Nuance: Recognition that health is influenced by factors like medication (since medications can cause side effects), not just lifestyle.

Fact-check:

• Japan's "Metabo Law" requires health screenings and lifestyle guidance, but does not mandate exercise or penalize individuals directly.
• Obesity is linked to systemic issues, including poverty, food deserts, and certain medical treatments, aligning with the critiques mentioned.

Sources:

1. We should change the weather to grow crops 

a. Crops are good 

1. We should change weather for crops while it adversely affects weather elsewhere in the world?

a. could be trade-offs 

2. I think that all female mosquitos should be extinct.

a. Would prevent disease

b. unsure, we need some but get rid of most 

1. If all frogs go extinct?

a. animals would be affected

b. I personally have no problem with some other animals 

5. I believe in survival of the fittest

a. I think its nature 

b. we are evolved enough to protect weaker animals 

1. what would make you change your mind?

7. Humans can adapt their way out of climate change?

a. There’s always a way 

b. most people are smart; we could solve a problem and not have people die.

1. I would support Canada to provide foreign aid so that other countries who are suffering from Climate Change

9. even if taxes for us went up 

a. We should help even if we have to pay

b. we should help but what if we can’t afford to 

10. We should harvest all the mushrooms for medicine in a local population even if it meant extinction for the mushroom.

11. What if harvesting the mushroom saved humanity?

a. take some of the mushrooms 

b. do we have permission to take them? 

c. who will profit from this world saving medicine?

12. I would eat another human that died of natural causes (if it meant my family would survive).

a. If there is hope of survival

b. I would rather die 

c. The emotional trauma would kill me