Understanding our way to a more Sustainable Future
Our world is more divided than ever before. Being civically engaged—through informed discussion, critical thinking, and participation in decision-making—is essential to building a sustainable future. Our choices as citizens shape policies, systems, and societal values that affect the environment, economy, and equity. As part of our sustainability programming, through various interactive exercises: Spectrum Epistemology, which invites participants to explore differing views on complex topics, Fact Checking exercises from Political forums, and in the future a Where Do You Get Your Information? exercise, which examines the sources that influence our understanding. These activities encourage mutual understanding, reflection, dialogue, and informed action—key ingredients for a democratic, just, and sustainable society.
Fact-Checking
Fact-checking is essential in debates because it helps ensure that the information presented is accurate, credible, and not misleading. In the heat of a debate, especially on complex or controversial topics, speakers may unintentionally or intentionally make exaggerated or false claims. Fact-checking provides a way to hold participants accountable and maintain the integrity of the discussion. It also helps the audience make informed decisions based on truth rather than rhetoric. Without fact-checking, debates risk spreading misinformation and undermining public trust in dialogue and decision-making.
During the October 2024 Provincial election, UNBC Sustainability alongside the Energy Transition Group, PGEVA, and UNBC Political Science Student Association organized three All-Candidates Forum where students had the opportunity to put their fact-checking skills to the test! The students received training from Evidence for Democracy on "How to Fact Check", shown below:
Evidence for Democracy - How to Fact Check
Where do you get your news/information?
Information is everywhere! But how do you make sure you're getting the right information?
Here are some resources:
Evidence for Democracy
Evidence for Democracy (E4D) is a fact-driven, non-partisan, not-for-profit organization advocating for the transparent use of evidence in government decision-making in Canada. They have many training videos that help you or your organization address misinformation.
https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/training/
Government of Canada website on Online disinformation
The Government of Canada website has resources on how to deal with and avoid disinformation:
https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/online-disinformation.html
Ground News
Ground News is a media literacy platform designed to help readers navigate the complexities of modern news consumption by providing tools to compare how different news outlets report on the same stories. By aggregating coverage from over 50,000 news sources, Ground News enables users to identify media bias, assess source credibility, and understand ownership influences, thereby promoting informed and balanced perspectives.
Spectrum Street Epistemology
Spectrum Street Epistemology is an interactive activity designed to foster respectful dialogue and critical thinking about complex or controversial topics. Participants physically position themselves along a spectrum (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) in response to a thought-provoking statement. They are then invited to share their reasoning, listen to others, and, if moved by the discussion, shift their position.
The goal is not to debate or persuade, but to explore the foundations of beliefs, consider multiple perspectives, and reflect on how we form our views. This process encourages open-mindedness, empathy, and deeper civic engagement—key components of sustainability education. UNBC Sustainability started the first event with the UNBC Political Science Student Association during Green Week 2025: Act on Sustainability which was a great success.
Want to organize your own Spectrum Street Epistemology event? It's super easy! Here's how:
https://conversational-leadership.net/spectrum-street-epistemology/
Spectrum Street Epistemology Archive
Spectrum Street Epistemology Archive
13 students and 2 community members participated. Fact checking was performed by UNBC 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:
https://www.phoenix.edu/blog/is-ai-good-or-bad-for-society.html
https://www.opit.com/magazine/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-artificial-intelligence/
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 Demographic Transition Model, 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 Demographic Transition Model, 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:
https://populationeducation.org/limitations-of-the-demographic-transition-model-dtm/
https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2016-012.pdf
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:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4520940/
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/overweight-and-obesity/causes