Angry in the Great White North

Let's start with the donation page at the David Suzuki Foundation:

You can also follow the links to:

• Make an online gift
• Join the E.O. Wilson Circle (gifts over $500)
• Make a gift in memory or to honour someone you care about
• Give a David Suzuki Foundation gift membership
• Make a legacy gift in your will
• Make a gift of stock - NEW!

Notice that the only level of membership graced with a name is the "E. O. Wilson Circle". No David Suzuki Square or Al Gore Oval. Who is Wilson that he should be so important to the Foundation?

Edward Wilson is the famous myrmecologist -- he studies ants. But more than that, he is famous for promoting the theory that individual human behaviour is not only influenced by one's genes, but indeed is dominated by genetic programming. Cultural influences, that is, learned behaviour, is secondary, at best.

Wilson has been roundly criticized for his views. Many noted scientists warned that it was only a short step from humans as automatons to racism, and ultimately the horrors of Nazism. They had a point, I think.

But then maybe I'm just programmed to think that, and so my opinion can't amount to much.

In any case, Wilson is also a noted environmentalist, and so the use of his name by the Suzuki Foundation makes sense. But why just his name?

Consider another difficult issue -- human overpopulation. The Sierra Club got into some serious hot water when it debated whether to adopt a motion that would make the depopulation of the United States official policy. Wilson supported that idea in the face of harsh criticism:

A major opportunity for education about American overpopulation and over immigration's role in that problem took place in 1998 in the referendum within the Sierra Club, one of the nation's oldest and largest environmental organizations. The half million members could vote on a ballot initiative calling for the U.S. to adopt "a comprehensive population policy." The referendum also advocated "an end to U.S. population growth at the earliest possible time through reduction in natural increase (births minus deaths), but now also through reduction in net immigration (immigration minus emigration)."

Regretably, this simple affirmation of population sanity was the cause of the most extreme ad hominem accusations of racism against the proponents, both within the Club and in the news media.

The pressure on supporters of the initiative was intense. Several early backers, even some with known interest in explosive population matters, were convinced to withdraw their endorsements. However, a stellar list of principled supporters remained, including Tony Beilenson, Lester Brown, Dave Foreman, Gaylord Nelson, E.O. Wilson and many others.

So Wilson believes that humans are essentially enslaved by their genes (he called it the "genetic leash") and the human population ought to be drawn down by closing up the borders and reducing the number of live births. Interestingly, David Suzuki has some things to say about human population growth:

Human population has an obvious impact on the health of our environment. Generally, more people consume more resources and leave less habitat for other creatures. But the relationship isn't simply more people = greater impact. The way we live is also an important factor, so even though our population growth is slowing, our environmental impact continues to rise.

When I was born in 1936, there were only about two billion people. Think about how much simpler our food, energy and pollution issues would be if that was all there were today!

Right. We'd only have to get rid of two thirds of the human race to get back to those happy times. Now everybody look to the person on your left and to the person on your right. Only one of you would be alive, etc, etc. Suzuki carries on:

A report published in the journal Nature argues that household dynamics also plays an important role. Right now, the worldwide trend is towards smaller households and this does not bode well for the environment. If households are smaller (ie. each dwelling contains fewer people) but population remains the same, then there will have to be more dwellings to house the same number of people. That means more urban sprawl, more land co-opted for buildings and less habitat for wildlife. It also means more stoves and furnaces burning more fossil fuels and wood. It means more electricity needed to run more refrigerators, lights and home appliances - things that used to be shared in larger households. All this leads to less habitat, more pollution and more greenhouse gas emissions.

So where does this lead? To answer that, consider the Suzuki Foundation's official plan, Sustainability Within a Generation. On page 14, we see how we will be forced to use less material, energy, and water. In 2008, we'd all be using 10% less material and 10% less energy and water. In 2020, 20% less material, and 30% less energy and water. In 2030, 30% less material and 50% less energy and water.

But what is interesting is that the plan makes no mention of population growth. It just says Canada's total use of material, energy, and water drops by these amounts. The plan says nothing about our individual allotment of material, energy, and water. This matters because according to some estimates, Canada's population is expected to grow by over 15% between now and 2030.

So if Canada's population has grown by 15%, the share of energy and water used by each person does not drop by 50% of what it is today, but by almost 60%. More if the population grows faster. But the Suzuki plan never makes that clear. By refering only to Canada's total consumption, the effect on the individual is hidden.

Almost as if the effect on the individual is not relevant.

A hint of the impact on individuals appears in the text in one spot, though:

Encourage programs and organizations that lease and share products (e.g. car co-operatives) so that people are purchasing services, not goods.

Car co-operatives? You mean I can't own my own car, but I have to share it? I suppose I'll have to. If I'm allowed to use only 40% of the material in 2030 (my individual allotment, assuming the population has grown as expected) compared to what I could use in 2007, my car will have to much smaller, or three of use will have to pool our resource rations to get the same vehicle as I could get today. In a country as geographically dispersed as Canada, that is not easy.

And for most people in the developed world, having your own car is the ultimate expression of individuality and freedom.

Imagine getting permission from your co-op to take the shared car out for a drive. Imagine having to justify the emissions being generated because you want to go to the store by yourself or something equally selfish.

So put it all together. The Suzuki Foundation gives Edward Wilson -- ant expert, believer in man as the gene machine, and supporter of depopulation -- a unique honour by naming the top-level membership tier after him. The Foundation also proposes to slash our individual allotment of resources by well over 50% over the next 20 years. Finally, David Suzuki bemoans the increase in human population since his birth, and argues that too many of us own too many things individually, rooted in our insistence on individual dwellings.

It's our insistence on individuality that is the problem, when you think about it.

The solution?

Collective ownership. Carefully controlled allocation of resources. Population restrictions. Communal living space. The deprecation of free will.

Ants.

Stephen Baxter explored that theme -- humans evolving into a new eusocial creature -- in Coalescent. It was not a pretty sight. But it was efficient -- the final scene of the book takes place in the far future, as we watch human soldiers (the free-willed kind since both strains of humanity survive) invade a Coalescent colony to violently recruit soldiers for the war against the Xeelee. Literally millions of Coalescents surviving on a tiny planet, essentially a barren rock. The hyperefficiency of the mindless worker controlled through social conditioning and chemicals.

But that's just science fiction written to entertain. David Suzuki, on the other hand, is quite serious. I'm sitting alone in my living room writing this piece, while my wife and my four kids are alseep upstairs. In twenty years, if David Suzuki has his way, my living room will be about the size of a walk-in closet. Maybe. Presumably part of some large, eco-friendly apartment block, one block among many, each carefully designed to impact nature as little as possible. If I'm lucky, I'll have a small (and efficiently designed) family to share my closet with. In a few hours, it'll be our turn to use to communal stove to make breakfast.

And remember, breakfast will have to be 40% smaller, and use 60% less energy to prepare. Sounds yummy.

Maybe he plans to control who can have families as well. It makes sense. Obviously, irresponsible free-willed people like me are a threat to the efficient use of resources, and ultimately to the environment.

Too many free-willed wasteful people as it is. Time to cull the colony.