After some recent discussion regarding a correspondence with David Suzuki we felt that this matter needed to be addressed.

Back in early 2009, Cliff Faber (coordinator of Zeitgeist Canada) sent a letter to David Suzuki, introducing him to The Zeitgeist Movement, including a Zeitgeist: Addendum DVD and an Orientation Guide booklet. Within 48 hours, Cliff received a disheartening response (quite similar to Noam Chomsky’s). Below is the original letter Cliff sent, along with Suzuki’s written response. I will break down his response underneath.

“To Mr. David Suzuki

My name is Cliff Faber.

Current monetary problems can be addressed easily, but NOT by our political system. Our current political system is not set up to deal with TRUE solutions or open to moving in that direction. In fact, TRUE solutions go against EVERYTHING that our current political system stands for in its entirety. So the hungry faces of the millions of citizens looking hopefully toward the government to provide solutions to making the world a better place is never going to happen.

I feel that we need to give people REAL alternatives, so that they, the people, can make better “knowledgeable” choices and not just rely on what the government says.

Social problems result from scarcity. When a few nations control most of the world’s resources, there are going to be international disputes no matter how many laws or treaties are signed. If we wish to end war, crime, hunger, poverty, territorial disputes, and nationalism, we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people.

Our problems cannot be solved in a society based on money, waste, and human exploitation. Today, money is used to regulate the economy for the benefit of the few who control the financial wealth of nations. Unless the underlying causes of planned obsolescence, environmental neglect, and outrageous military expenditures are addressed, we are bound to fail. Treaties, blockades, boycotts, and the like used in the past have not worked.

Many believe that ethical standards and international laws will assure a sustainable global society. Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth’s resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment.

Earth has plentiful resources. Rationing resources through monetary control is dysfunctional and counterproductive to survival. Today, we have highly advanced technologies but our social and economic development has not kept up. We could easily create a world of abundance without servitude and debt through the creation of a global, resource-based civilization.

Please enjoy this DVD.

Thanks,

Cliff Faber”

David Suzuki’s response (typed out underneath):


“Dear Mr. Faber:

I am returning your material. I only read the first chapter but I disagree so much with it that I do not feel it worth my time. We are at a critical point and science and technology have to be part of the solution, but I do not believe we have the knowledge to create the future your project and I disagree with your dismissal of accumulated knowledge and insights over thousands of years. In many ways, we have become savages that are often thought to be what people once were.

David Suzuki”

...

Now, let’s break this down.

It is very discouraging to witness such a close-minded response from a well-respected scientist and environmentalist like Suzuki. Of course, all people, including “scientists” are subject to the cultural limitations and perverse value identifications that our modern cancerous society imposes upon people.

Suzuki: “I only read the first chapter but I disagree so much with it that I do not feel it worth my time.”

I will assume by chapter 1 he is referring to Part 1 of the Orientation Guide, entitled “Monetary Economics: Mechanisms & Consequences”, which details the colossal detriments of the monetary system, referencing absurd symptoms of our economic structure like the need for cyclical consumption (and consequently, the outrageous waste produced), inferior products & planned obsolescence, environmental neglect, the creation of [mostly artificial] scarcity, etc.

I wonder what about this Suzuki claims to disagree with. Surely he is no stranger to the insufficiency of the market structure with relation to the environment—something he spends a great deal of time fighting. As an environmental activist, one would think that he would attempt to address the causes responsible for the symptoms he’s fighting. If he supports the monetary economic system, he is nothing more than another self-appointed guardian of the status quo, with the naïve goal of fighting an economic model that is inherently unsustainable, corrupt and environmentally exploitative.

Suzuki: “We are at a critical point and science and technology have to be part of the solution, but I do not believe we have the knowledge to create the future your project...”

I assume he meant, “the future your project proposes”, or something similar.

I wonder then, since he agrees science and technology have to be part of the solution, what his solution is? Again, does he ever address the foundational aspects of society that cause the problems in the first place? Of course, given that he likely spent less than half an hour examining the information before projecting an ignorant response, he is unfamiliar with the aims of The Venus Project. Let’s assume he is familiar though – which “knowledge” are we lacking to create a Resource-Based Economy (RBE)? As will be discussed subsequently, a RBE is a base economic model that uses resource management as its foundation with the goal of peak sustainability. The best possible technologies we then utilize become optimally harnessed based on the current stage of technology. A RBE does not rely on specific technologies.

Suzuki: “...and I disagree with your dismissal of accumulated knowledge and insights over thousands of years.”

This is a semantically loaded statement and can be addressed from multiple angles.

---1) We’re not dismissing knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the years. What we are advocating is using known elements—in fact, the best of what science and technology has to offer—and putting them together under a foundation of a new socioeconomic model that harnesses and embraces this potential. If we maintain the current structure, then we will be dismissing the knowledge and potential.

---2) History is replete with examples of academic scholars ignorantly and arrogantly projecting their erroneous assumptions about what is possible in the future. Here are a few humorous examples:

I) Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.
- Darryl F. Zanuck, head of 20th Century-Fox, 1946.

II) There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.
- Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

III) "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".
- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

IV) "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy."
- Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888
...

---3) Accumulated “knowledge” from the past is constantly being overturned, updated and expanded upon. The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project do not have fixed proposals, but rather a “systems approach” methodology upon which to structure society. Of course, Suzuki won’t be aware of this, as this was not “worth his time”.

Sadly, this grossly ignorant response from a revered “scientist” and “environmental activist” is common amongst those who have created an established position for themselves within this market economy, and they suffer from the same paralyzing mindlock that any other average human being would. If these are the types of people we look up to in this society, it is easy to see why we are in such a dyer societal predicament.

I am being very disheartened by people I used to respect, I have come to the conclusion that they are really no better than even the worst capitalist bankers, they have found a 'niche', a way to make themselves 'money' out of the system and a way to feel 'important'. ..... so they aren't interested.

Well I guess that explains why he didn't reply to my letter of inquiry when I wrote him a couple of months ago. He did, however, happily take my donation, and sent me a letter asking me to become a monthly donor.

I am tempted to us that SASE that was included to send him a letter saying that I'll become a monthly donor when he takes the time to read more than one chapter, or at the very least sit down and watch Z:A.

Listen there are plenty of very intelligent people out there who do support this movement. One of these days I'll record one of the philosophy club meetings that I attend; it is lead by two university professors, he has published a couple books on reasoning--practically everything they is verbatim from the tenants of this movement; and he knew absolutely nothing about the movement until I told him about its existence.

We should target individuals who already have radical perspectives. It is not simply a matter of intellectualism, it is also a matter of seeking radical change. Most people have one but not the other.

Timidity rains supreme in the status quo; we must target the radical intellectuals.

This makes me alittle miffed. I wrote about this on my blog. We should all get together and contact him through his foundation and tell him that if he ever wants our support as a movement that he should at least read our documentation and state precisely what he disagrees with.

We should be polite, but we should emphasis that we represent 400,000+ people globally (and growing!) and that we want what he wants.

www.davidsuzuki.org/about/contact/

Vasper85 wrote:
This makes me alittle miffed. I wrote about this on my blog. We should all get together and contact him through his foundation and tell him that if he ever wants our support as a movement that he should at least read our documentation and state precisely what he disagrees with.

We should be polite, but we should emphasis that we represent 400,000+ people globally (and growing!) and that we want what he wants.

www.davidsuzuki.org/about/contact/

thanks, but due to his short msg allowed, i only sent the following message :



"During times of universal deceit…”

Fellow citizens, fellow residents, but, ultimately, fellow thinkers and toilers: this is a call for action; action, for the time being, demanding no more than that which comes natural to every living thing that can think--to think. But to think willfully, with a diligent pursuit for the truth.

forum.lowyat.net/topic/1616890

I think we should try to contact Severn Suzuki maybe she is more in touch with the current state of technology and is more willing to look at these concepts and tackle the economy problem as she is being doing in recent lectures.

I have been thinking we should try a different tactic with all these people who so obviously dismiss the RBE idea without even having made any attempt to understand it...... Perhaps we could sort of make them have to study the idea by asking them to provide us with a good reason why a half a million people and growing are wrong to support it. Perhaps even ask them if they could debate their reasons for not supporting it with someone like PJ or Neil or even Roxanne and Jacques.

I am always interested in seeing if someone can actually give a good reason for thinking we would be better off with just trying to fix the monetary system........I sure can't see one. I can only see an ever worsening future for the world. The only arguments I have seen against the RBE idea have all been completely baseless.

I am very surprised at his ignorant and lazy response, both in terms of not reading past chapter 1 and the grammar of his reply letter. He should technically advocate everything we do if he truly respects the planet and its natural way of life.

I wonder what Peter would think of his response.

What should we do as a movement to his response?

Steven

“Dear Mr. Faber:

I am returning your material. I only read the first chapter but I disagree so much with it that I do not feel it worth my time. We are at a critical point and science and technology have to be part of the solution, but I do not believe we have the knowledge to create the future your project and I disagree with your dismissal of accumulated knowledge and insights over thousands of years. In many ways, we have become savages that are often thought to be what people once were.

David Suzuki”

People often ask me still why we do not "collaborate" so to speak with other activists/ environmental organizations. This is because all of the protocols / traditional approaches of the current activist community, on all levels, are based on an establishment worldview that has and will continue to fail. Mr. Suzuki's response is a case in point of an individual who holds a tremendous amount of weight and hence established view of social change... and hence any thing that challenges that view is like challenging a religion. Most activist groups act like corporations at this stage.

Now, with regard to David's exact points it is an immature and irresponsible refutation which makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, the first "chapter" of the orientation guide which I assume he was referring to since the first chapter of the movie is only about the fractional reserve system, only lays out the patterns of the economic system and says nothing about what a resource-based economy is. So from that point alone he obviously has taken zero time to understand anything.
As far as his statement about a "dismissal of knowledge"...Where did he even get that? what does that even mean? if anything, it's the absolute opposite.

So, I am saddened to see such blind dismissal, especially from people who claim to want real change. No -- they do not want real change. They want the change that they assume is correct and since most of the highly revered activists have successfully acquired a great deal of income support for their work, it is a natural propensity for them to think that the monetary system is okay since they are being supported by it by their so-called activist initiatives. This is the paradox. The bottom line is that the change needed will not come from the pre-existing activist establishments. They are detached from any reference to the wholistic system. This goes for the entire spectrum as I see it. Greenpeace -- Michael Moore -- Annie Leonard and all the other heavily revered social and environmental activists of our time continue to refuse to look at the system from the broadest perspective and see the fatal flaw... either that or they just don't understand it. But frankly believe most blinker it out due to their monetary success.

The activism community on this planet is dead. They are locked into the box and do not see beyond it. They are angry puppies neatly kept in their state run kennel. Even more, all activism over the past five decades has failed time after time. nothing has changed in any substantial way. The civil rights movement while helping over all was replaced by an economic form of violence/ segregation. voting rights for women and minorities was overcome by the propaganda machine of the state and the patterns/values of voting have not changed at all. the environmental community pretends it has progress when it is a fact that every life-support system is (still) in decline on this planet and getting worse.

So, I challenge any activist group to tell me where their true progress is both from a broad social and environmental standpoint- long term. They use the legal system and the legal system is open for perpetual change based on the whims of any new politician. It doesn't matter how many ships Greenpeace boards -- it doesn't matter how many slave labor camps are shut down -- it doesn't matter how many antiwar protests emerge on the streets of Washington-- it is simply a matter of time before new methods of abuse and exploitation and advantage crop up... just like roaches coming out from under a refrigerator because the spoiled food/socioeconomic system is still there.