Is it "hypocrisy" for David Suzuki to have several kids?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Another in a series on old topics revisited.

On environmental issues, I see an analogue to the political compass. On one axis, there is your degree of environmentalism, with, let's say, outright climate change denialists on one end, and rabid eco-zealots on the other. On the other axis, there is the degree to which you think procreation is part of the problem, with eco-antinatalists on one end and Elizabeth-May-types on the other.

David Sukuzi, notoriously, is both very environmentalist and somewhat inclined to consider procreation part of the problem. He has several children, but condemns ordinary people for how many children they have.

On superficial first glance, this might look hypocritical. But David Suzuki is obviously more dedicated to the environment than the average person and could pass this on to his kids, if not for his role in their upbringing, then to whatever yet-unknown roles genetics may have in whatever personality traits inform the extent of his environmentalism. Does that not make him having kids have different moral implications than people less environmentalist than himself having kids?

I'm honestly not sure if Suzuki has been a net positive for the environment. The tone he takes with some people might embitter them to environmentalism altogether. But if he sees his activism as outweighing his personal carbon footprint, does it not stand to reason that there is hope for his kids to be the same? Or perhaps even better than himself on this front?

On the whole, environmentalists are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, condemn procreation. If they condemn only the pollution created by this generation, and not by future generations yet to be born, it looks hypocritical. Yet if they condemn people for bringing too many potential future polluters into the world, they're told to kill themselves. Which, if they ever listened, would mean the fossil fuels already combusted driving them to and from school in their formative years will have gone to waste, and they will not have created a world in which fewer fossil fuels need to be combusted in the first place to show for it. :/

[Galloism]

What?

[Arval Va]

This is... nonsense.

If you want to argue about whether one individual person is net positive for the environment, you clearly have no idea of the actual nature of anthropogenic climate change.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

This is... nonsense.

If you want to argue about whether one individual person is net positive for the environment, you clearly have no idea of the actual nature of anthropogenic climate change.

Slight net positive =/= significant net positive.

[The 189]

Who's David Suzuki and why am I supposed to care?

[Arval Va]

This is... nonsense.

If you want to argue about whether one individual person is net positive for the environment, you clearly have no idea of the actual nature of anthropogenic climate change.

Slight net positive =/= significant net positive.

Basically, none of this is relevant to anything or very convincing.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Who's David Suzuki and why am I supposed to care?

Canadian environmental activist.

More relevantly, specific criticisms of him whose validity is in question seem to come from either non-environmentalists or from environmentalists who don't find eco-antinatalism in particular valid. This reflects more broadly on the extent to which environmentalism and eco-antinatalism can be distinguished in kind or only in degree.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Slight net positive =/= significant net positive.

Basically, none of this is relevant to anything or very convincing.

If the people who say having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution to climate change are the same people who make David Suzuki out to be a hypocrite, then I would say that if it is hypocritical of him, that reflects well on such people's judgment, and therefore well on the notion that having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution, but if it isn't hypocritical, that reflects poorly on such people's judgment, and therefore poorly on the notion that having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution.

What, pray tell, is unconvincing about it?

[Arval Va]

Basically, none of this is relevant to anything or very convincing.

If the people who say having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution to climate change are the same people who make David Suzuki out to be a hypocrite, then I would say that if it is hypocritical of him, that reflects well on such people's judgment, and therefore well on the notion that having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution, but if it isn't hypocritical, that reflects poorly on such people's judgment, and therefore poorly on the notion that having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution.

What, pray tell, is unconvincing about it?

Because the actions of this one man have no bearing on the greater workings of athropogenic climate or any relevance to the overall epistemic value of these viewpoints.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

If the people who say having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution to climate change are the same people who make David Suzuki out to be a hypocrite, then I would say that if it is hypocritical of him, that reflects well on such people's judgment, and therefore well on the notion that having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution, but if it isn't hypocritical, that reflects poorly on such people's judgment, and therefore poorly on the notion that having fewer kids isn't even part of the solution.

What, pray tell, is unconvincing about it?

Because the actions of this one man have no bearing on the greater workings of athropogenic climate or any relevance to the overall epistemic value of these viewpoints.

By "greater workings" do you mean the combined actions of ordinary consumers as a whole, or the (per capita) disproportionate role of lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry? If the latter, do you consider their role greater or lesser than the power at the ballot box of the rest of the public combined?

Also, it's not just the actions of "this one man" but of the multiple people who insist this action of his is hypocritical, the multiple people who insist that it's not, and who has more credibility to their worldview based on the validity on this particular point?

[Nazbol England]

This is fascinating. I’ll try to respond later, after I’m more on top of university work. I’m also going to work on a conservation project at some point, if God wills it.

[Arval Va]

Because the actions of this one man have no bearing on the greater workings of athropogenic climate or any relevance to the overall epistemic value of these viewpoints.

By "greater workings" do you mean the combined actions of ordinary consumers as a whole, or the (per capita) disproportionate role of lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry? If the latter, do you consider their role greater or lesser than the power at the ballot box of the rest of the public combined?

All the systems that allow greed to trump the needs of the planet and society as a whole. Overall, the average citizen's actions are a drop in the bucket and have little to no influence on the environment; it is systems of governance and industry that are responsible in almost all cases. Regarding lobbyists, it has long been clear that the interests of industry supercede the voter's wishes.

[Benuty]

Being a hypocrite is one thing, but it's when someone openly goes down the ecofascist (i.e. eugenics route) route that the hypocrisy is no longer hypocrisy, but blatantly ideological.

[Thermodolia]

Who?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

By "greater workings" do you mean the combined actions of ordinary consumers as a whole, or the (per capita) disproportionate role of lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry? If the latter, do you consider their role greater or lesser than the power at the ballot box of the rest of the public combined?

All the systems that allow greed to trump the needs of the planet and society as a whole. Overall, the average citizen's actions are a drop in the bucket and have little to no influence on the environment; it is systems of governance and industry that are responsible in almost all cases. Regarding lobbyists, it has long been clear that the interests of industry supercede the voter's wishes.

Not yet they haven't. Most examples thereof consist of comparing what respondents tell pollsters to what politicians do. But respondents cannot be proven sincere. Some of the same people claiming respondents should be taken at their word then turn around as soon as those respondents are, let's say, the 78% of men who say they'd rather a confident plus sized woman than an insecure supermodel, and decide not to take respondents at their word. Whereas I'm at least a bit more consistent about this; I take it with a grain of salt by default.

But even if corporate capture of government were the issue, does that not imply that under present circumstances, "having fewer kids" was something ordinary people could do about climate change? I'm not sure how, if at all, that could be ethically incentivized, but if such an incentive came up, would that not be something ordinary people could do, so long as they cannot in the meantime resolve such corporate capture?

Being a hypocrite is one thing, but it's when someone openly goes down the ecofascist (i.e. eugenics route) route that the hypocrisy is no longer hypocrisy, but blatantly ideological.

"Ecofascist" is a bit of a misnomer. Most of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism do not apply to the belief that people having fewer kids is even part of the solution to climate change.

[Adamede]

Who fucking cares?

[Arval Va]

All the systems that allow greed to trump the needs of the planet and society as a whole. Overall, the average citizen's actions are a drop in the bucket and have little to no influence on the environment; it is systems of governance and industry that are responsible in almost all cases. Regarding lobbyists, it has long been clear that the interests of industry supercede the voter's wishes.

Not yet they haven't. Most examples thereof consist of comparing what respondents tell pollsters to what politicians do. But respondents cannot be proven sincere. Some of the same people claiming respondents should be taken at their word then turn around as soon as those respondents are, let's say, the 78% of men who say they'd rather a confident plus sized woman than an insecure supermodel, and decide not to take respondents at their word. Whereas I'm at least a bit more consistent about this; I take it with a grain of salt by default.

Polling? How did we get here?

If you want an example of industry trumping the voters, we can look at car dealerships. Trivial, but a good example. Dealerships have a huge economic influence on the legislature, as they have a large lobby and provide huge amounts of tax. In return, they've been given free reign to overcharge customers, develop "exclusive zones" where no-one else can compete with them, and deny the wishes of car manufacturers. Even though dealerships are a hassle and pretty much pointless, they stick around because it's more profitable for the middle-man.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Not yet they haven't. Most examples thereof consist of comparing what respondents tell pollsters to what politicians do. But respondents cannot be proven sincere. Some of the same people claiming respondents should be taken at their word then turn around as soon as those respondents are, let's say, the 78% of men who say they'd rather a confident plus sized woman than an insecure supermodel, and decide not to take respondents at their word. Whereas I'm at least a bit more consistent about this; I take it with a grain of salt by default.

Polling? How did we get here?

If you want an example of industry trumping the voters, we can look at car dealerships. Trivial, but a good example. Dealerships have a huge economic influence on the legislature, as they have a large lobby and provide huge amounts of tax. In return, they've been given free reign to overcharge customers, develop "exclusive zones" where no-one else can compete with them, and deny the wishes of car manufacturers. Even though dealerships are a hassle and pretty much pointless, they stick around because it's more profitable for the middle-man.

A. There are market-worshippers out there so worshipping of the free market, consequences be damned, that they vote against social spending despite being poor themselves.

B. There are environmentalists so environmentalist they would align with shady car dealerships just to give the middle finger to motorists for perpetuating car culture and its environmental ill effects.

On what grounds would you assume these two groups of people combined are outnumbered by everyone else, if not polling?

[Benuty]

All the systems that allow greed to trump the needs of the planet and society as a whole. Overall, the average citizen's actions are a drop in the bucket and have little to no influence on the environment; it is systems of governance and industry that are responsible in almost all cases. Regarding lobbyists, it has long been clear that the interests of industry supercede the voter's wishes.

Not yet they haven't. Most examples thereof consist of comparing what respondents tell pollsters to what politicians do. But respondents cannot be proven sincere. Some of the same people claiming respondents should be taken at their word then turn around as soon as those respondents are, let's say, the 78% of men who say they'd rather a confident plus sized woman than an insecure supermodel, and decide not to take respondents at their word. Whereas I'm at least a bit more consistent about this; I take it with a grain of salt by default.

But even if corporate capture of government were the issue, does that not imply that under present circumstances, "having fewer kids" was something ordinary people could do about climate change? I'm not sure how, if at all, that could be ethically incentivized, but if such an incentive came up, would that not be something ordinary people could do, so long as they cannot in the meantime resolve such corporate capture?

Being a hypocrite is one thing, but it's when someone openly goes down the ecofascist (i.e. eugenics route) route that the hypocrisy is no longer hypocrisy, but blatantly ideological.

"Ecofascist" is a bit of a misnomer. Most of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism do not apply to the belief that people having fewer kids is even part of the solution to climate change.

I have to disagree with you here, the question isn't the issue of belief but the enforcement of it. If you believe one thing and enforce it without hypocrisy it can still very much be dangerous. Its even more dangerous if its hypocrisy hidden behind ideology. For example the Post War continuation of rationing in the United Kingdom often was explicitly used as a blunt instrument by the political establishment well past its actual need (West Germany was out of rationing long before the UK finally ended it). If you advocate for people having a restricted amount of kids while having past that number of kids yourself then you're either a hypocrite or you have an ideological agenda.

To address the misnomer, I have to disagree. If the out-group can't have as many kids to the point of a reduction while the in-group can then it very much can be used by those advocating for a type of environmentalism that isn't for all humans, but only some. The earliest pro-Nazis were often youths on an environmentalist back to the land craze. They weren't the only ones either, but Suzuki seems to be in the hypocrite category rather than the ideologue category.

[Vivida Vis Animi]

Just one of many self-righteous men with nothing interesting to add or contribute to the conversation other than angrily shaking their fist at the sky.

[The Black Forrest]

So wait. He had 5 children and that invalidates whatever work he has done?

These insipid attempts to make someone a hypocrite is an strange way to invalidate their work.

[Juansonia]

So wait. He had 5 children and that invalidates whatever work he has done?

These insipid attempts to make someone a hypocrite is an strange way to invalidate their work.

The argument, in this case, is that Suzuki (allegedly, I have no idea) has stated that having too many children is harmful to the environment, and that people have a moral duty to not have as many kids. Given those two points, and that Suzuki would have too many children by that standard, the hypocrisy is clear.

[Techocracy101010]

unless you rack up a 6 figure kill count in a high per capita carbon emiter country and its all folks aged 1-65 aka prime co2 emission age you uhh arent really going to reduce co2 emissions by not having kids. This thinking is flawed wrong and gross

[The Pirateariat]

Environmentalism is something we're just going to have to, even if some environmentalists are maybe dickwads.

So if the point is to somehow invalidate environmentalism, then it's a stupid point. If the point is to pick out one obscure guy who no one here has ever heard of, and mock him, then that's also a stupid point.

[Kerwa]

I know nothings about the particulars of this, but since a lot of prominent environmentalists care about the environment as much as Joel Osteen does Jesus, I am going to assume yes.