Susan Blackmore contracts apocalyptic fever

[Roboramma]

If one of the options presented was, for example, kill all Africans to reduce the popluation Diamond might have extended his sentence to read ....

That would be false. He would be characterizing the article as racist because it mentions a racist viewpoint. The article itself would not be racist, which is exactly what he would be saying.

If you said "your post is just bullying and evasion" you would be saying something about the nature of my post, not the content. Diamonds OP says something about the content, vis. he thinks one of the options represents "social-Darwinism" while one or more is "eco-fasicm". I can see nothing in Diamond's short OP that takes that one step further to attach these to Susan Blackmore's intentions or beliefs.

No, he said what her article is, not what she mentions in her article.

But all this is silly. Why don't we wait until Diamond gets back to see what he has to say?

Edit: Since this post went to a new page, it would be easy to miss Larson's most recent post. Just thought I'd mention that it was there.

 

[Jekyll]

Meh.
The premise is woo anyway.

"A small country, surrounded by water, and with a high population density is better suited than most to cope with rising water levels."

I'm sure everyone from land locked central Europe will be rushing to get aboard the life boat we call the UK.

 

[Geckko]

Which I backed up.


I refer you to (Diamond's) post #18 in this thread.

But it was a preceding post of yours, #8, that took Diamond to task for claiming that Susan Blackmore was "choosing" options.

True, Diamonds response, #18 does put in play his/her views on Susan Blackmore's position. However, I can't believe you could have foreseen this 10 posts earlier.

I will concede that your challenge was proven after the fact.

However, I think you need to concede that your post #8 was premature in its demands.

 

[sphenisc]

. I don't know who Susan Blackmore is, but she definitely does lay claim to a belief that:

In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades

...snip...
I find that opinion extreme to say the least.

I'm surprised you find that opinion extreme. I regarded it as pretty well indisputable.

The world average life expectancy is 64.05 years

http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?xml=world&xsl=pop_data

Given 'the next few decades' as about 30 years, then approximately half the world's population will die in that time. world population is 6,446,131,400 (from same site), so about 3.2 billion will die.

[ I'm aware that this assumes uniform age structure, symmetry around the mean of 64.05 etc. however I don't think any improvement on the model is going to move the estimate outside the range 2-4 billion.]

This is without any alteration in current environmental 'selection' pressures, just the status quo continuing. And in the normal course of events these would be more than compensated for by births.

What I suspect was intended, was that there would be a net loss of billions of human lives. But the claim as given is not extreme as far as I can see.

 

[CFLarsen]

But it was a preceding post of yours, #8, that took Diamond to task for claiming that Susan Blackmore was "choosing" options.

True, Diamonds response, #18 does put in play his/her views on Susan Blackmore's position. However, I can't believe you could have foreseen this 10 posts earlier.

I will concede that your challenge was proven after the fact.

However, I think you need to concede that your post #8 was premature in its demands.

It was a reply to Paul.

Will you concede now?

 

[Diamond]

I'm surprised you find that opinion extreme. I regarded it as pretty well indisputable.

The world average life expectancy is 64.05 years

http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?xml=world&xsl=pop_data

Given 'the next few decades' as about 30 years, then approximately half the world's population will die in that time. world population is 6,446,131,400 (from same site), so about 3.2 billion will die.

[ I'm aware that this assumes uniform age structure, symmetry around the mean of 64.05 etc. however I don't think any improvement on the model is going to move the estimate outside the range 2-4 billion.]

This is without any alteration in current environmental 'selection' pressures, just the status quo continuing. And in the normal course of events these would be more than compensated for by births.

What I suspect was intended, was that there would be a net loss of billions of human lives. But the claim as given is not extreme as far as I can see.

If Susan Blackmore was simply implying that billions of people are going to die of normal old age, do you think I'd be mentioning that trivial point? Or that's what she meant?

The claim made was that she had taken on board an apocalyptic view of the future more normally held by extreme religious sects, and stated it as a fact beyond dispute.

After this particular premise is made she then goes on to lay out scenarios for what we should do to mitigate the apocalypse: let billions of people die before their time from nature gone amok while fortressing our own country to prevent entry, try to retreat from modern civilisation in order to appease an angry Mother Nature, try to help everybody and face continual war for dwindling resources until we all die out or work out who are the most worthy people to survive and try to preserve them at the expense of everyone else.

 

[CFLarsen]

If Susan Blackmore was simply implying that billions of people are going to die of normal old age, do you think I'd be mentioning that trivial point? Or that's what she meant?

The claim made was that she had taken on board an apocalyptic view of the future more normally held by extreme religious sects, and stated it as a fact beyond dispute.

After this particular premise is made she then goes on to lay out scenarios for what we should do to mitigate the apocalypse: let billions of people die before their time from nature gone amok while fortressing our own country to prevent entry, try to retreat from modern civilisation in order to appease an angry Mother Nature, try to help everybody and face continual war for dwindling resources until we all die out or work out who are the most worthy people to survive and try to preserve them at the expense of everyone else.

So you did not claim that Susan Blackmore promotes eco-fascism and social darwinism?

 

[Diamond]

Do you think that making a joke about her appearance makes people think well of skeptics?

What kind of humor can skeptics use, then?

 

[Diamond]

So you did not claim that Susan Blackmore promotes eco-fascism and social darwinism?

Geckko got the nuance. You did not. I never used the verb "promote" in the original post.

On the other hand if you think that allowing only the most "worthy" to live while allowing everyone else to die in environmental catastrophes of one kind or another, seeing that reducing the world's population by 2/3rd is more important that saving those lives IS NOT social darwinism of an extreme kind, then I'd like to hear it.

 

[CFLarsen]

What kind of humor can skeptics use, then?

I asked you the very same question in this thread.

Care to answer the question? Do you think that making a joke about her appearance makes people think well of skeptics?

Geckko got the nuance. You did not. I never used the verb "promote" in the original post.

The "nuance" could have been explained far earlier, so you wouldn't have to worm your way out of it this way.

On the other hand if you think that allowing only the most "worthy" to live while allowing everyone else to die in environmental catastrophes of one kind or another, seeing that reducing the world's population by 2/3rd is more important that saving those lives IS NOT social darwinism of an extreme kind, then I'd like to hear it.

Whoa. Nobody said anything like that. The way you posted it, with subsequent derogatory posts about her personal appearance, certainly gave the impression that you claimed that she did promote eco-fascism and social darwinism.

Do you see that it could have been understood that way?

 

[Geckko]

I'm surprised you find that opinion extreme. I regarded it as pretty well indisputable.

The world average life expectancy is 64.05 years

http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?xml=world&xsl=pop_data

Given 'the next few decades' as about 30 years, then approximately half the world's population will die in that time. world population is 6,446,131,400 (from same site), so about 3.2 billion will die.

[ I'm aware that this assumes uniform age structure, symmetry around the mean of 64.05 etc. however I don't think any improvement on the model is going to move the estimate outside the range 2-4 billion.]

This is without any alteration in current environmental 'selection' pressures, just the status quo continuing. And in the normal course of events these would be more than compensated for by births.

What I suspect was intended, was that there would be a net loss of billions of human lives. But the claim as given is not extreme as far as I can see.

I did in fact anticipate that response. Nicely done.

I did, however, try to specify the context with the second quote that I used which stated that the world needed to shed a few billions heads.

 

[Diamond]

I asked you the very same question in this thread.

Care to answer the question? Do you think that making a joke about her appearance makes people think well of skeptics?

Evasion noted.

The "nuance" could have been explained far earlier, so you wouldn't have to worm your way out of it this way.

Evasion noted again. Why do I have to explain or apologise when your comprehension is at fault?

Whoa. Nobody said anything like that. The way you posted it, with subsequent derogatory posts about her personal appearance, certainly gave the impression that you claimed that she did promote eco-fascism and social darwinism.

Nobody said anything like that? (my emphasis)

As Jim Lovelock points out in his "Revenge of Gaia", she has a fever, and we are the bug that's causing it. The carrying capacity of the earth is possibly a billion or two; it's certainly far lower than the current plague of humans.

and

Indeed none of these choices looks easy, but if we fail to make any decisions then I believe the most likely outcome is that we in the rich west will go on trying to salve our consciences by giving aid to the poorer parts of the world until we realise, far too late, that Gaia is going to chuck us all off whatever we do, and nothing can be saved at all.

This would be a lot easier conversation if you actually read the article rather than trying to exculpate Susan Blackmore from the lunatic ravings she so palpably believes to be correct.

Do you see that it could have been understood that way?

I'm not going to apologise for your lack of comprehension. Please get over yourself.

 

[sphenisc]

I did in fact anticipate that response. Nicely done.

I did, however, try to specify the context with the second quote that I used which stated that the world needed to shed a few billions heads.

But this raises the possibilty of other options - there is no need to alter current policies regarding who's allowed to stay alive, if we instead slow down the rate of reproduction. Zero reproduction and we halve the population in 30 years with no 'extra' deaths. Any sub-replacement (basically <2) rate of reproduction and the population reduces, but more slowly. Delaying reproduction would also help.

So we need massive campaigns advocating contraception, reversible sterilisation, homosexuality, abstinence, voluntary euthanasia and suicide.
We also need stigmatisation of large families, young mothers and children in general.

This way no-one extra has to die, (unless they want to).

Hope this was less predictable.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evasion noted.

I did not evade anything. Since you were the first to bring up the issue of humor and skeptics, I thought it would be most appropriate to have you answer the question first.

Evasion noted again. Why do I have to explain or apologise when your comprehension is at fault?

Nobody is asking you to apologize. But a simple explanatory statement could have prevented a lot of confusion. Like "No, I do not claim that Susan Blackmore promotes eco-fascism and social darwinism."

Instead, you choose to dance around the issue.

Nobody said anything like that? (my emphasis)

Nobody in this thread.

That was an explanatory statement. It's cleared up now. See how easy it is?

This would be a lot easier conversation if you actually read the article rather than trying to exculpate Susan Blackmore from the lunatic ravings she so palpably believes to be correct.

I did read the article. Why are they lunatic? Why are they wrong? Instead of merely repeating this, explain yourself.

You can't throw out something like that and not expect to be challenged. Not on this forum.

I'm not going to apologise for your lack of comprehension. Please get over yourself.

Again, nobody is demanding that you apologize. All I am saying is that you could have stopped this confusion a long time ago with a simple clarifying statement.

Here's what I think happened. You did claim that she promoted eco-fascism and social darwinism. When you found out that she didn't, but merely listed the possibilities, you started making all sorts of evasive and abrasive posts. When you were handed a flimsy escape route, you grabbed it with both hands, and blamed me for the whole thing.

I don't think I am wrong. And I think you know that too.

 

[Rolfe]

Holding people to their claims is not bullying. It is being skeptical.

Oh, wow.

Could I just mention that I must have asked you a dozen times to state the name and edition and publication of the dictionary you were using to substantiate the following statement?

No it is you that is playing semantics. Given the definition of an eye lid it is incorrect to state that snakes have "fused eyelids". Snakes have a different structure that protects their eyes, some creatures have eyelids, some have brills.

What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.

I never received even an attempt at a reply.

After many many posts where you appeared to be quite deliberately failing to understand the question, you finally revealed that in your personal understanding of the English language, "you" in this context not only didn't refer specifically to Darat, it was intended to include all bipedal animals and birds, including the Christmas turkey.

The "nuance" could have been explained far earlier, ....

But you chose not to. And you continued to ignore my request to post the dictionary definition you were using to support your original statement. (Which I was requesting precisely because I hoped that would shed some light on what the hell you were actually talking about, since you appeared completely incapable of explaining yourself.) You also repeatedly ignored my question to you to explain what relevance that extremely ambiguous remark about drumsticks had to the question of whether a snake's brille could be described as eyelids.

I don't really want to derail this thread by reopening that essentially trivial issue (which I had to abandon at the time because of a sudden journey to Scotland to attend to my sick mother), but I do think it illustrates the difficulty when someone whose first language is not English assumes nuances that don't exist, and then bull-headedly pursues his imagined point, deaf to all indications that others may not share his interpretation of the statement at issue.

If you'd really like to get round to answering these questions, Claus (stating the dictionary reference, and quoting it exactly, and explaining how that thing about members and legs and drumsticks was in any way supposed to relate to the eyelids issue), then I know you're good at finding old threads.

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

Rolfe,

When a leg is not a leg (only it is, when it isn't, and then again...), then the thread has left for Wonderland.

 

[Rolfe]

Still refusing to answer a couple of perfectly simple questions? Evasion noted.

Rolfe.

 

[Diamond]

I did not evade anything. Since you were the first to bring up the issue of humor and skeptics, I thought it would be most appropriate to have you answer the question first.

Which I did. Obviously you choke at making comments about someone's dress sense, but are apparently relaxed about snickering over someone's unfortunate death. I think it's perverse.

I did read the article. Why are they lunatic? Why are they wrong? Instead of merely repeating this, explain yourself.

You can't throw out something like that and not expect to be challenged. Not on this forum.

No, that isn't skepticism, it's pedantry. Challenged on what? That I regard the notion that the Earth's population is doomed from fire, flood and drought and that only a small number of us will survive? What's rational about that?

I note that you snipped the statements I had collected which clearly were making a social darwinist solution to this non-problem.

Here's what I think happened. You did claim that she promoted eco-fascism and social darwinism. When you found out that she didn't, but merely listed the possibilities, you started making all sorts of evasive and abrasive posts. When you were handed a flimsy escape route, you grabbed it with both hands, and blamed me for the whole thing.

I don't think I am wrong. And I think you know that too.

You never do think you're wrong. Even facing the evidence. It's always somebody not explaining things in microscopic details, not you. I never "claimed that she promoted eco-fascism and social darwinism" because nowhere did I write the verb "promote". You inserted it and then tried to barrack me into explaining it.

Getting to the point, I regard Susan Blackmore's statements the statements of someone who has clearly abandoned rationality in favour of an apocalyptic viewpoint. I think that Susan Blackmore's mental state can fairly be described as suffering from anxiety and possible paranoia. I think I know why.

Susan Blackmore has from a ludicrous premise concocted what she regards as four unpalatable solutions: one a "Lifeboat" scenario, one a "Social Darwinist" strategy of the survival of the most worthy, one a "eco-fascist" abandonment of civilisation and return to the Stone Age, and one which seeks to mitigate this "crisis" but which dooms humanity to extinction. She does not "promote" them. She regards the evidence of eco-catastrophe as all encompassing and beyond dispute. She does not recommend any of them as preferable but sees no other choices in response to the "crisis". She regards the decimation of the world's population as unfortunate but inevitable to save a sick planet.

Now I might ask you what is rational or meaningful about her description of the world around us or why any of those proposed solutions becomes even necessary to articulate. Will we get an answer or more evasion?

 

[epepke]

If Susan Blackmore was simply implying that billions of people are going to die of normal old age, do you think I'd be mentioning that trivial point? Or that's what she meant?

We don't know what goes on in your brain when you come to conclusions. You haven't explained it much, except to say that you never used the term "promote." And we're still trying to figure out what you mean by "eco-fascism." What is this? Mussolini spiking trees?

What we can figure out, if only indirectly by watching the fallout, is that something inside you goes "poom!" whenever anything that has to do with the future of ecosystems comes up for grabs. It happens now, and it happens whenever global warming is discussed.

I think that the article is vapid and stupid; this is the third time that I've said that. I also think it highly likely that some Special Substances were involved, and this is the second time.

But I don't know what to make of phrases such as "eco-fascism." Although that might be wrong, too. I can't scroll back right now. Maybe you said "eco-fascist." But I'm pretty sure from memory that there was an "eco" and a "fasc" in it somewhere.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which I did. Obviously you choke at making comments about someone's dress sense, but are apparently relaxed about snickering over someone's unfortunate death. I think it's perverse.

I was simply pointing out your double standards. In your world, we can't make a little fun of someone who joined the choir invisible in a rather unexpected way. But character assassination to help support your argument is just fine and dandy.

No, that isn't skepticism, it's pedantry. Challenged on what? That I regard the notion that the Earth's population is doomed from fire, flood and drought and that only a small number of us will survive? What's rational about that?

I note that you snipped the statements I had collected which clearly were making a social darwinist solution to this non-problem.

You keep using words that very much gives the impression that she is promoting these solutions. She wasn't making the solution, she listed it as one of those solutions which she sees as inevitable.

You never do think you're wrong. Even facing the evidence. It's always somebody not explaining things in microscopic details, not you. I never "claimed that she promoted eco-fascism and social darwinism" because nowhere did I write the verb "promote". You inserted it and then tried to barrack me into explaining it.

Ah, the "I never said it directly" ruse. If that's your way out of it, fine. Next time, try to make the single, clarifying statement that prevents all this.

Getting to the point

Finally.

I regard Susan Blackmore's statements the statements of someone who has clearly abandoned rationality in favour of an apocalyptic viewpoint. I think that Susan Blackmore's mental state can fairly be described as suffering from anxiety and possible paranoia. I think I know why.

Susan Blackmore has from a ludicrous premise concocted what she regards as four unpalatable solutions: one a "Lifeboat" scenario, one a "Social Darwinist" strategy of the survival of the most worthy, one a "eco-fascist" abandonment of civilisation and return to the Stone Age, and one which seeks to mitigate this "crisis" but which dooms humanity to extinction. She does not "promote" them. She regards the evidence of eco-catastrophe as all encompassing and beyond dispute. She does not recommend any of them as preferable but sees no other choices in response to the "crisis". She regards the decimation of the world's population as unfortunate but inevitable to save a sick planet.

Now I might ask you what is rational or meaningful about her description of the world around us or why any of those proposed solutions becomes even necessary to articulate. Will we get an answer or more evasion?

Frankly, I share her concerns. Although there are positive signs that e.g. the growth in world population rate seems to be stalling (but not dropping), I see a very bleak future ahead. Not for you and me, of course. We live in parts of the world where we are rich and powerful enough to protect ourselves. But for the billions of people who aren't as fortunate as us, things don't look good.

Global warming is a fact. What causes it is up for discussion, although I frankly don't see much reason to doubt that it is our doing. We will see a lot more pollution, now that e.g. China is developing at a stunning speed. There will be many more cars, many more houses to heat, many more mouthes to feed. The problems are mounting.

Now, you can call that whatever you want, but at least Blackmore is coming up with solutions, as unpalatable as they are to you. But simply dissing her solutions is not constructive.

What do you suggest we do about these problems?