The ant-like world of David Suzuki
What would the world be like if David Suzuki had his way? We are to think that we would be living in harmony with nature, surrounded by butterflies and squirrels and such. But when you look for the clues, expend some analytical effort, and do a bit of reading, the reality is that the butterflies and squirrels will be happy, but you and I (or whoever is allowed to live) will be living a regimented communal existence, with little that we can call our own. If you don't like it, well, that's not really relevant. Your free will, and all that comes of that, like your opinions, is an illusion anyway.
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
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.
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
David Suzuki E O Wilson Edward Wilson ants Canada Stephen Baxter Coalescent eusocial selfish gene
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Great post as usual, Steve.
It's scary to think what people like David Suzuki would do to people like us, himself not included of course.
Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at March 21, 2007 07:27 AM
I don't want to be an ant. This is truely a scary world Suzuki and his follows envision.
Makes me want to build a monster house right now!
Posted by: James at March 21, 2007 07:33 AM
The last and newest option in the ways to donate to the Suzuki Foundation is to give stock. I wonder if they would appreciate stock in such profitable firms as Exxon/Mobil, BP, Shell, Halliburton etc.
Posted by: Paul at March 21, 2007 08:43 AM
So, I guess David suzuki is going to move 30-40 homeless people into his seaside masnsion :-)
Posted by: skuleman at March 21, 2007 08:51 AM
Are you serious? Scientists around the world agree that we're destroying the planet and you're worried about the size of your living room? How myopic can you get? You have four children. What Suzuki is arguing is that if everyone had four kids and those people had four kids of their own, and then those kids had four kids of *their* own, at some point the global population would reach a frightening tipping point. The planet is a finite space and we can as a species outgrow it. The kind of rampant, mindless, McMansion-buying, gas-guzzling prosperity you promote in this post has no answer to this phenomenon.
Whether you like it or not, environmentalists like Suzuki are actually trying to *preserve* some semblance of your cowboy individuality, not subvert it - which is more than I can say for the neo-fascist plutocrat currently sitting in the PMO. Environmentalism is not 'socialist plot' as the thugs running the Conservative Party would have you believe. It's trying to preserve our species over the long term.
In 2030, people will be building memorials and museums in Susuki's honour for blazing the trail toward sustainable lifestyles and economies. Conversely, in 2030 Stephen Harper and his cabal of criminals will be nothing more than a rumour, an embarrassing period of Canada's history where we cynically dabbled with 'every man for himself until the resources run out'. He's an embarrassment to our great country.
Posted by: Cam at March 21, 2007 09:02 AM
I'd like to hear someone bring this up on one of his radio shows. Then ask him why is he not walking the talk, so to speak, as I've heard he has several homes, not just the one. (but I don't know that for sure)
However, with some of the media now giving him hard questions, I think he is probably sticking to "friendly" radio spots only..
Posted by: The Hammer of Thor at March 21, 2007 09:04 AM
Some "Scientists" in the late 18th century also predicted we'd be neck deep in horseshit by now due to the increasing population and the needs that come with it. The chicken-little to sane people ratio these days is indeed getting out of hand!
Anyway Cam, seeing as how we aren't going to change your mind here, I'm going to hold out an olive branch here and give you a chance to do your part
Skal!
Posted by: The Hammer of Thor at March 21, 2007 09:42 AM
Keep up the good analytic work. It is imperative that people realize the tree-hugging, leaf-eating new puritans are a dangerous bunch. It is creepy that so many have embraced Suzuki's word as gospel.
Posted by: Honey Pot at March 21, 2007 09:45 AM
Cam ,
You know of course , that Suzuki has five children ?
Posted by: Bill D.Cat at March 21, 2007 09:49 AM
Angry: thanks for the article.
We do need a thoughtful discussion of population policy.
As individuals can choose whether or not to have children however our governments are certainly not "neutral" (e.g. support for day-care, child tax credits, etc.). Similarly government policy strongly affects the magnitude and composition of immigration.
Among the key questions are how different population policies may affect our environment (including the quality of our communities). We also need to consider how population policy may affect the economy and indeed whether it is possible to have a vibrant economy with a declining population (a prospect faced by Japan).
These are not simple questions - but certainly deserving of well reasoned argument.
Posted by: G.T. at March 21, 2007 10:10 AM
Nonono, you don't understand - Cam has hit the nail on the head!
We all need to make continuous, continuously-increasing sacrifices if we are to defeat the evil eco-fanatics that have sworn to murder us all. This effort will see us living five families to an 8-by-12 foot room by 2050, but it is vitally necessary - and by then we will surely triumph! And Suzuki? You must understand, the leaders of the glorious ecolocialist revolution are Important Men - they need their space and leisure time to themselves, and their ocean-front dachas, to plan our next great triumphs! Proletariat of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your greenhouse gas emitters!
They call them "watermelons" - green outside, red inside.
Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2007 10:31 AM
So we need to depopulate? Who among Suzuki, Wilson, and their followers are willing to step forward and volunteer for steralization and/or euthenasia?
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at March 21, 2007 11:44 AM
Has anybody read the book "Anthem" by Ayn Rand? When I first read it as a teenager I couldn't imagine a world where individualism was surrendered for the collective good. Yet we seem to be racing toward that day.
Posted by: Larry Borsato at March 21, 2007 11:48 AM
Cam is one scary dude. I have to laugh at his checklist of hysterical Demagogy:
-A word with 'Mc' in front of it..McMansion. lol
-False authority
-Half truths
-False dilemma
-Demonization
-Personal attack
-Straw manism
Congrats, Cam...Stalin would have loved you.
Posted by: Levesque at March 21, 2007 11:56 AM
Steve, I agree with your concern about the elimination of choice and free-will in the name of imposing greater efficiencies.
Alarmingly, it has already started. For example, there are those among us who think it's a "great idea" to completely eliminate some people's choice of light source and temperature, simply because they "abhor waste and inefficiency":
http://stevejanke.com/archives/218415.php
(Sorry, but I hate those CF bulbs.)
Posted by: 2Sheds at March 21, 2007 01:10 PM
Cam
What you and many propose is a static existence for mankind.
Common sense tells any ninth grader that this is not possible as the very essence of any organism is enveloped in its own future demise and then a renewal process takes place.
So called environmentalists as Suzuki,who by their own volition are experts, are in fact incredibly myopic in their approach to dealing with this notion.
It is my belief that mankind through his declining belief in a greater force than himself (call it God if you will) is in fact trying to take on that role. Beware of a man with a little bit of knowledge for he is dangerous indeed!
To expect a man who has lived with individuality and comforts to have to resort to living in a colony of shared goods and overbearing dogmas, is only another form of socialism/communism at its finest,though more true to human nature,its worst.This experiment was tried countless times in the twentieth century to no avail.
People like Suzuki suffer from massive egos,padded by their underlying need to have people not only see things their way,but to also blindly follow those mental hypotheses that they put forth.Of course the donations don't hurt nor does the immunity of hiding one's politics under the gossamer guise of enviro/jargon.
The sad part of this equation as I mentioned earlier is that these people don't/won't factor mankind's cunning ability to adapt to most any problem that crosses his path.
To shut down our world to a bombshelter mentality of basic existence and sniping,is to take on the nearsighted attributes of the insect world...industrious,yes...regimented,most certainly...domineering,definitely...individual freedom,None!...A socialists dream,which is exactly where Dr Suzuki is coming from.
Life needs joy and art...a sense of personal accomplishment in being unique individuals.
It is about being proud of oneself,not another cog in the wheel.Life is about living...not just existing as the ecocrowd demands.
The commune experience was tried in the Sixties...it was a dismal failure.
If mankind should go the way of the dinosaur well we wouldn't be the first species to do so...nor I suspect the last.
Posted by: Simon at March 21, 2007 02:01 PM
"What Suzuki is arguing is that if everyone had four kids and those people had four kids of their own, and then those kids had four kids of *their* own, at some point the global population would reach a frightening tipping point. The planet is a finite space and we can as a species outgrow it."
Hey, calm down. Everyone isn't having four kids, and those kids having four kids, and every man having 17 wives, except the Muslims who are popping out kids like an assembly line out-birthing Christians about 6-1. When 'their day' comes, they're are going to take over the west (that's their words not mine) and kill all of us dirty filthy infidels (their words not mine)anyway. So go ahead, worry about the tree-hugger myth that is man-made global warming. So calm down, build your big house, drive your SUV's...let's enjoy them while we can.
Posted by: Ross at March 21, 2007 03:13 PM
Perhaps we shouldn't be SHOOTING THE MESSENGER, instead of him being the overpaid CBC lightweight that he is. The fact is, 1/2 of the atmosphere is BELOW, 18,000 feet, you fly at 28,000...Simply can't allow INDUSTRY to use the atmosphere as its SEWER. Jawolt? Zu Befehl!
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at March 21, 2007 04:57 PM
Perhaps we shouldn't be SHOOTING THE MESSENGER, instead of him being the overpaid CBC lightweight that he is. The fact is, 1/2 of the atmosphere is BELOW 18,000 feet, you fly at 28,000...Simply can't allow INDUSTRY to use the atmosphere as its SEWER. Jawolt? Zu Befehl!
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at March 21, 2007 04:57 PM
E.O. Wilson is a recipient, along with Bill Clinton and James Nachtwey, the world-renowned war photographer, of the 2007 TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) Prize. Each winner is "granted ONE WORLD-CHANGING WISH to be revealed at the 2007 TED conference, in Monterey, CA.... Each winner receive[s] $100,000 to be spent however they choose in support of their wishes."
http://www.ted.com/
Some excerpts from the TED Website:
"TED is an event like no other. It brings together more than 1000 thought-leaders, movers and shakers...
...in Monterey, California...
...for four days of learning, laughter and inspiration.
They hear not just the latest ideas in Technology, Entertainment and Design, but also Business, Science and The Arts...in fact ANY subject area offering something fresh and important.
This unique breadth of content, and the quality of the people who deliver it, ae what TED special. After four days, you gain an understanding of how your own work fits into the larger web of knowledge.
And you get the chance to connect with extraordinary individuals who are helping create a better future for us all."
Not exactly a modest bunch, these TED conference-goers and "Icons, Geniuses, and Mavericks"--the theme of the 2007 TED Conference. This is what the TED Web has to say about this year's theme:
"TED2007 will be different. Instead of a subject-matter theme, we are simply going to put on stage FIFTY REMARKABLE PEOPLE...and let them share whatever it is they are passionate about.
This, of course, is what TED has always been about. Bringing together extraordinary people from every area of thought, work and culture, and lo and behold, astonishing connections are made, excitement and inspiration follow."
I don't know who their writers and editors are, but the copy makes me gag--and blush. If I were editing this drivel it wouldn't see the light of day: "bringing together extraordinary people"? "lo and behold, astonishing connections are made"?? "a better future for us all??? Jeesh. These folks are gnostics, actually: "We know more and better than YOU do. Let's celebrate ourselves and our ideas."
About E.O. Wilson, this is what the TED Web site has to say: Biologist. One of the world's most distinguished scientists. E.O. Wilson's career has encompassed the discovery of numerous ant species, the launch of the controversial field of sociobiology, books describing the unity of knowledge and, most recently, impassioned pleas to preserve biodiversity. He is a 2007 TED Prize winner and will be revealing his prize wish in Monterey.
This is E.O. Wilson's prize wish: "I wish that we will work together to help create the key tool that we need to inspire preservation of Earth's biodiversity: the Encyclopedia of Life."
For details of making this wish come true:
http://www.ted.com/tedprize/winners2007.cfm
There seem to be a lot of powerful and "extraordinary" people who laud and honour E.O. Wilson's vision for the future.
Lucky us.
Posted by: 'been around the block at March 21, 2007 05:08 PM
Touche, 2Sheds. However, I'm not eliminating people's right to illumination. I'm just exercising my good engineering sense to remove a grossly inefficient solution to a simple problem. And I'm certainly not requiring a dozen people to share a single light bulb.
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 21, 2007 05:51 PM
Cam is right.
You MUST remember that Saint Suzuki's precious, sacred date of birth is a hallowed baseline for all wretched, ant-like humanity. We MUST all hold saints like Suzuki, Gore, and those blessed souls toiling for the IPCC, in the highest esteem and reverence. These great men and women are sacrificing their life, and precious bodily fluids, to save the planet and the all generations of mankind.
We MUST return to the world as it was on that Sacred Day in 1936; anyone who dares to question this sublime truth is an apostate, and they MUST be shunned, scorned, and made to repent.
Please show some humility and respect, and send blessings and love to Saint Suzuki; and be sure to send him your tithe, of at least ten percent of your gross income (from all sources).
Posted by: terrence at March 21, 2007 06:15 PM
iloveya
Posted by: hi at April 12, 2007 08:54 AM
 
|
|
