Susan Blackmore contracts apocalyptic fever

mumblethrax said:
Absolutely. This is why I don't understand why some are denying the validity of her premises and then calling her to account for her conclusions, as if they would somehow still apply.
Click to expand...
Because it seemed to me that she was using false premises to advocate alarmist reactions. Defending euthanasia of the unfit, or barricading one's shores against refugees, might be something one has to look at if things are bad enough (then look away again, in my opinion, but that's another matter). However, to use a wholly alarmist scenario to justify the serious consideration of such extreme measures is not something I find pretty.
mumblethrax said:
Because of what Huntsman posted. Those estimates that take into consideration the sustainability of agricultural practices driven by fossil fuels tend towards the lower end of the spectrum. This would seem to be pretty important when we're addressing the question of sustainable carrying capacity. It might not be 1 or 2 billion, but it's almost certainly less than the 9 billion projected by 2050. Throw the exigencies of global warming into the mix, and the world starts to look too small.

It's possible that we'll produce technology to replace fossil fuels (and not just as a source of energy) within the given timeframe, so I wouldn't call it inevitable, but the historical track record isn't very good here (see, for example, Jared Diamond's Collapse). While our civilization has been successful in transitioning to new resources before, that's not quite enough to give me confidence that we'll do it again, particular since it's very difficult to bootstrap our way to sustainable energy infrastructures. We're not really taking this seriously at the moment, and the clock is already ticking. But this is probably the point where I would differ most from Blackmore.

Give me an upper bound for "the next few decades" and I'll tell you if I think it's the right timeframe.

Inevitably. Wherever we see famine or widespread conflict (itself often a result of ecological damage), we see refugee crises.

The current crisis in Darfur, for example, is at its core a conflict over land and fresh water. We should expect this type of event more often as resources dwindle. Our dismal track record there, including today's announcement that the rations provided by the World Food Program will be halved for budgetary reasons, give us a glimpse of the sort of genocidal neglect we are likely to apply as matters get worse.
Click to expand...
So, if you agree with her to some degree at least, then what do you think should be the responses? Are you for Fortress Britain, or suicide of the human species to allow the rest of the ecosystem to survive, or euthanasia of the non-essential to preserve civilisation? Something else? And when do you think we should start?[/quote]
mumblethrax said:
Her hair color, your personal distaste (which you've since said was a case of mistaken identity), her scientific eminence (which I think you've underestimated). None of these seems relevant to the truth of her premises. As for cannabis, Carl Sagan made very similar statements, and I don't really think any less of him or his work as a result. I don't even think it explains his dedication to SETI.

I mean, if you think she's wrong, I can understand that. But why is it necessary to call upon all these tangential details of her personal life? Can't we just stick to the argument?
Click to expand...
Where did I make a "personal attack" on her hair colour? I called it psychedelic, certainly, which I think is factual. And it was Diamond who noted that her admitted cannabis habit might have some bearing on her extremely pessimistic outlook on the future. I see that as a relevant point, not a personal attack. And I'm sorry if you disagree, but from where I'm sitting her "scientific eminence" doesn't amount to diddly-squat.

All I know about her is the contents of this article and the associated linked commentaries. On the basis of that, I judge her as out to lunch. However, if I do come across something sensible said by her, I have no problem acknowledging it as such.

You seem to have some pre-existing regard for this lady. Very nice. However, that is precisely my point. Even if it comes from someone for whom you have some regard, it should be possible to recognise inflammatory scaremongering for what it is.

Alternatively, as I said above, if you really do believe that her recounted scenario is realistic, what do you think the response should be? One of her alternatives? Or something else?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
(What for, by the way?)
Click to expand...

What for?

Well....for starters, you built your criticism on the wrong person. And, you don't think raising the sea level (to pick just one issue) will result in the loss of many lives.

Or, perhaps I'm getting it wrong? Maybe we should take it step by step.

Do you believe that global warming is a fact?

If not, why not? But, if you do, do you believe that global warming will result in the melting of at least part of the ice caps?

If not, why not? But, if you do, do you believe that this melting will result in a rising sea level by at least 40 meters?

If not, why not? But, if you do, do you believe that this will result in the majority of Bangladesh, Florida, Holland and Denmark being perpetually flooded?

If not, why not? But, if you do, do you believe that this will result in many, many millions of people either drown or having to be relocated?

If not, why not? But, if you do, can you explain how we can deal with hundreds of millions - probably billions - of people with no place to be?

Just explain to me where I am losing you with this line of reasoning.
 
so... are we about to diverge into another purely 'global warming' thread here?
 
If I needed any more evidence that "skepticism," especially as practiced here, consists almost entirely of gang behavior, this thread provides plenty.
 
epepke said:
If I needed any more evidence that "skepticism," especially as practiced here, consists almost entirely of gang behavior, this thread provides plenty.
Click to expand...

Does feel a bit like the bottom layer of the outhouse sometimes, doesn't it?

Just remember we don't all practice the same kind of skepticism here.

Do also bear in mind that T'ai Chi very often enters these debates in what appears to be a direct attempt to foster this kind of breakdonw.
 
.

jj said:
Do also bear in mind that T'ai Chi very often enters these debates in what appears to be a direct attempt to foster this kind of breakdonw.
Click to expand...

I enter in anywhere, anytime in a thread that has already admittingly "brokendonw", I am to blame. I see.

Bear in mind that that illogic only works in jj-land it seems.
 
T'ai Chi said:
I enter in anywhere, anytime in a thread that has already admittingly "brokendonw", I am to blame. I see.

Bear in mind that that illogic only works in jj-land it seems.
Click to expand...
I thought you were above personal attacks?
 
I remember back in the 70’s, global cooling was a really big issue. We were heading into another ice age if we didn’t fix the environment. What happened to that? Did we fix it too good? Now it’s global warming. Who keeps screwing with the thermostat?
 
The Painter said:
I remember back in the 70’s, global cooling was a really big issue. We were heading into another ice age if we didn’t fix the environment. What happened to that? Did we fix it too good? Now it’s global warming. Who keeps screwing with the thermostat?
Click to expand...
What was the source of global cooling? A nuclear war, right?
 
CFLarsen said:
What was the source of global cooling? A nuclear war, right?
Click to expand...
No, aerosols and "orbital forcing". Anyway, improved models and theories now indicate that these cooling effects are outweighed by increases in greenhouses gases and the consequent global warming. Science moves on.
 
The point is; science changes. What was considered reliable science 30, 40 or 50 years ago is now known to be wrong. What will science say in 20 or 30 years? Global warming was a crock? Maybe. Who knows what the big picture has in store for us. Maybe it’s our purpose to change the environment to a point where we become extinct. Then a higher life form may evolve. Maybe humans are just a stepping stone in the evolution of life on Earth. Polluting and melting the ice caps might be exactly what we are supposed to do. Nobody knows.
 
The Painter said:
The point is; science changes. What was considered reliable science 30, 40 or 50 years ago is now known to be wrong. What will science say in 20 or 30 years? Global warming was a crock? Maybe. Who knows what the big picture has in store for us. Maybe it’s our purpose to change the environment to a point where we become extinct. Then a higher life form may evolve. Maybe humans are just a stepping stone in the evolution of life on Earth. Polluting and melting the ice caps might be exactly what we are supposed to do. Nobody knows.
Click to expand...


Our purpose? Or the purpose of a higher power?

I'm sorry, but as thinking rational beings, I'm going all out for keeping myself alive, and my backyard not the coast of the Atlantic. This whole "leave it in God's hands" thing, or "do we know what the PLAN is" is something that fundies say so that they can keep driving their Hummers and paying no income tax.

Nope, let's DO something. Let's keep up with the science. It's been basically good to us so far. I mean, maybe polio WAS the plan for culling the weak. But if you don't buy into there being a PLAN, you can really do something.

Science fiction is fun, but it's just fiction.

Hey, even if it IS natures plan, we can change it. We've altered our environments lots of time. You can't protect against everything, or change everything, but it's worth a shot to do what you can.

The whole nuke bomb thing sounds cool (pun)
 
CFLarsen said:
You didn't answer my question: Why did you think that?
Click to expand...

When someone asks a leading question and ends it in "right?" it makes
one wonder why they asked the question. Thank you for your response.
I actually didn't think anything which I why I asked you about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom