David Suzuki: Learning the value of respect on Haida Gwaii

Comments

I spent a week around July 1 in a cabin on one of Haida Gwaii’s remote islands. I was there to celebrate a birthday—not Canada’s, but my grandson’s second. And what a blessed time it was, hanging out with him without the distractions of email, phone calls, or television.

When I got involved with First Nations communities in remote areas, one of the first lessons I learned was about the importance of respect. Without respect for each other, we don’t listen and we fail to learn. Instead, we try to engage in conversations set within the perspective of our values, beliefs, and ideas. It’s what led to the depredation of Europeans in the Americas, Africa, and Australia. It’s what led to catastrophic disasters when explorers failed to listen and learn from local people during expeditions to the Arctic, down the Nile, and into the Amazon.

But respect should extend beyond our fellow humans, to all the green things that capture the sun’s energy and power the rest of life on Earth, to the birds, the fish, the rivers and oceans, the clouds and sky, to all the things that make this planet home and nurture our species.

It rained every day but one on Hotsprings Island where we stayed. It’s a rainforest, and that’s to be expected. We dressed for it and went out at low tide to tickle geoduck siphons. My grandson squealed with delight as each clam ejected a jet of water to withdraw into the mud. The jumble of seaweed at water’s edge formed an astonishing collage of colour and shape, and we peered under leaves to find crabs, sculpins, and starfish.

I was overwhelmed with the thought that this diverse miniature community of animals and plants had flourished for millennia, co-existing and interacting in ways we have yet to discover. All over the world, life has found ways to survive and thereby enable human beings to exploit the abundance and productivity that developed within diverse ecosystems.

Human beings are a clever animal, able to overcome our deficits in size, speed, strength, and sensory abilities with curiosity and inventiveness. We now know we’re not alone as tool makers, but no other species has been blessed with the incredible resourcefulness and creativity to make tools such as ours.

I was impressed with my grandson’s response to his first birthday cake. He loved the novelty of the sweetness (his parents restrict his candy intake), but he only took three bites and was sated. If only we were all able to control our appetites so well. As a species, we have developed an insatiable hunger for stuff and the technological power and global economy to fulfill that consumptive demand.

It once took the Haida people months to cut down an immense tree to use for their longhouses, poles, or canoes. Today, one man and a chainsaw can achieve the same thing in a matter of minutes. Driven by a thirst for economic growth and profit, without a sense of respect for the forest as an ecosystem, we use our technology to destroy the forest for a small part of its constituents. We justify clear-cutting huge swathes of forest as “proper silvicultural practice” or “imitating naturally occurring fires or blowdowns”. But that’s all rationalization.

Think of the incredible technologies in ocean fisheries—radar, sonar, GPS, tough materials for nets, and more. We use drift nets, longlines, and bottom draggers that take immense numbers of target species and so-called bycatch, species deemed of no value or unintentionally taken (birds, sharks, turtles, dolphins, etc). Now the consequences are apparent, something I would never have dreamed possible when I was a boy: the oceans that cover 71 percent of Earth’s surface, the oceans that I was taught in high school were a “limitless source of protein”, are a mess, beset not only by overfishing, but dead zones bereft of oxygen, immense islands of plastic debris, and changing pH from carbon dioxide dissolving in the water.

These thoughts flowed through my brain as I wondered about the kind of world my grandson will grow up in and how far we could go if we learn that simple word, respect.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Comments (7) Add New Comment
James G
Your column reminds me of a time when I was young and was speaking to a gentleman in his 80s who had been involved in progressive political action his whole life. He spoke of a public meeting he attended in Trail, B.C. during the height of the depression of the 1930s. Now not unlike today, the people of the time were being asked to sacrifice but unlike today they had little choice in the matter. Again like today, they looked for political solutions anywhere they could find them and concepts like Social Credit grew in the only fertile soil of the day which was the political imagination.

This particular meeting was organized by the Technocracy Club, which was an embryonic political grouping promoting the idea of a government by experts. It sounded pretty good to some and those in attendance gave the speakers for the group a good hearing. When it came to questions from the audience, a few were answered until one gentleman asked simply, "What if this government of experts tells me my whole life my job is to dig ditches and I don't want to dig ditches?" The answer came back "If our government decides you should dig ditches, you will dig ditches!" Needless to day, the meeting erupted in chaos and the Technocracy Club found little favor from that time forward.

Until now. For some reason, the generation after mine was raised to ignore the danger of technocracy. If I can reference Marshall McLuhan a bit, the medium is the message. A foundation set up in in the name of helping environmental issues and pretending that the political environment it lives in does not exist sends this message, namely, let the experts handle it.

I also understand the difference between the academic and the real world. Although it only happened twice during my studies at SFU, professors did gave me lower grades for daring to challenge their doctrine. The world outside academia is a democracy. There is no tenure for those who cannot accept challenges to their orthodoxy. If you leave the protections of academia and enter into the political arena, you don't get to re-write the rules of the game. Making political statements and raising funds for a foundation is all in this arena, not the academic one. Science may be politically neutral but democracy still stands above science.

I would never want to suggest to other men how many children they should father since that would make me a tyrant. Nor could I suggest to him that he try to live with lesser means than I in terms of living space or how many residences I required since that would make me an elitist. Suggesting to all of us that we are the problem because we can't learn not to continually ask for more is casting a wide net. For those on the edge and struggling, it is a very nasty request. I once had a co-worker whose school age daughter wrote a famous scientist a letter saying she wanted to help him save the planet. She got back a note essentially telling her to put the bite on her struggling working class parents for donations. It was an ugly thing to have to teach a young child, to disillusion her of whom the media had taught her to idolize. Everyone must learn this but not at that age.

Finally, Dr. Suzuki, we in Vancouver have now tried out a government of technocrats with a green agenda. It holds municipal office here in Vancouver and for good reasons, I don't like it. At present I can still say that and I can vote against them and I certainly will. Others can think badly of me and speak out against my opinion and consider me a gadfly. You may even call me a fruit fly -- I am just not your fruit fly.
0
1
Rating: -1
James G
Just one more thing, when you use phraseology like "climate change deniers" that seems to equivocate scientists who disagree with you with the holocaust deniers that are actually neo- Nazis, I have to remind you that asking for respect is a two way street. Call them wrong, call them cranks, call them corrupt if you will but please don't use that term and then ask for a more respectful dialogue.
0
1
Rating: -1
LostMyGlasses
A holocaust denier is a holocaust denier.

A climate change denier is a climate change denier.

Be proud of what you are.
0
1
Rating: -1
Bill Riley
Anyone who still whines about the term "deniers" because they equate it with holocaust deniers is just not paying attention. Here's a quote from Suzuki that sums it up: "People who deny overwhelming scientific evidence without providing any compelling evidence of their own and who remain steadfast in their beliefs even as every argument they propose gets shot down do not demonstrate the intellectual rigour to be called skeptics."

It has nothing to with equating them to holocaust deniers, beyond the fact that both reject overwhelming evidence to promote absurd beliefs.

http://straight.com/article-333732/vancouver/david-suzuki-science-delive...
1
1
Rating: 0
lynnescape
I echo David Suzuki's sentiments. I have a little grandson who is 3 months old. I worry about the kind of world he will grow up in. We live in a country which is rich and yet we waste our resources. We put up with governments who only see profits and do not have a long term vision for our children's future. We allow corporations to poison our water and destroy the environment. We waste energy and consume things we don't need. It is time to work together to build a better world for our children and try to stop this catastrophic slide we are on. If you want to put things into perspective, go to the How Rich Are You website and type in your annual income.
1
0
Rating: +1
Science Lady
The Holocaust denial supposition is just another defensive red herring for anti-science, anti-environment people who are afraid of change. Here's what is really meant by denial in the context of climate change.

Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe: "Climate change is a vast and daunting issue. It is easier to deny the reality — and that's actually the first stage in coping with such an overwhelming issue, to deny it. If you're given a diagnosis of a horrifying and terrible disease, the first thing you would say is, 'Is it really true? Let's get a second opinion, a third opinion.' So it's a very natural response when we're faced with a huge, overwhelming issue that we personally feel there's not much we can do about, often it's easier psychologically to deny it than to acknowledge our own culpability in contributing to the problem, as well as our own sense of helplessness in solving it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/25/how-talk-climate-sceptic
0
0
Rating: 0
James G
I expected virtually unanimous dissent for both of my above comments. I am a bit surprised that there was more rejection to the first, my own thoughts rather than my obviously cribbed second one. The generation out there who have achieved academic and career success by parroting Dr. Suzuki didn't recognize copying when they saw it? Strange. Surely those who can still apply critical thinking, should any be left or at least any who bother to read this particular column, noted the difference? No? But then again, they never note the large number of children, the number of residences required, the constant traveling to places far and near that some public figures have and then never question how gargantuan that individuals carbon footprint was? Then, a la Marie Antoinette, it is suggested to the rest of us that we can all "just learn to eat a little less cake". You make my day, "Green" Canadians, for that you surely are. I propose two great international events, first, An Olympics of Hypocrisy and I know just who could medal for Canada. Then we could have an Olympics of Naivety and I know we would "own the podium".
1
0
Rating: +1
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.