Susan Blackmore contracts apocalyptic fever

[Diamond]

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.

My "character assassination" compares favorably with your snickering over somebody falling to his death in front of his pregnant wife? Perverse.

In any case, I point out that her viewpoint and fashion sense may be related to her regular use of cannabis, which is well known to cause in some regular users anxiety and paranoia. It isn't character assassination, it's just an inconvenient fact you choose to ignore.

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.

No, she posits the only four solutions to the catastrophic scenario she has constructed, and says choose one. Stop trying to put "promoting" into my mouth, Claus.

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.

They aren't ruses. You're putting words in my mouth, Claus, so try to take it like an adult when I point them out.

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.

How so? Where have you picked up this idea that the world's population is too high, and unsustainable? That idea was posited in the 1970s and its still wrong today.

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.

Then you've swallowed a lot of environmentalist propaganda hook, line and sinker. Global warming is fact, but temperatures have been rising since the beginning of the 17th Century well before any rise in carbon dioxide and before the Industrial Revolution. You also know that when Erik the Red discovered Greenland in 973 it could support the growing of crops, something impossible today as its too cold, indicating that 1000 years ago temperatures were generally higher than today. That Viking colony collapsed and starved to death as the world plunged into the Little Ice Age.

Historically the growth of civilisations has happened during warm periods and the collapse of civilisations and civil war and strife have happened during cold periods.

What is so scary about rising temperatures? During warm periods deserts contract while during cooling they expand. Which would you rather have?

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?

I diss her prognosis as ludicrous and her diagnoses as extreme apocalyptic claptrap that I thought I'd never see outside of a fundamentalist sect.

My advice to you would be the same as to Susan Blackmore - if you want to understand the real state of the world, don't rely on pressure groups and if you're near someone who likes altering her mind - don't inhale.

 

[CFLarsen]

My "character assassination" compares favorably with your snickering over somebody falling to his death in front of his pregnant wife? Perverse.

You are being deliberately dishonest here. As Joshua has pointed out, you are blaming people for things they did not know.

First of all, he did not die in front of his wife. Second, the news that his wife was pregnant came a day after the jokes were cracked.

You distort the truth and use that to attack skeptics. Talk about perversity.

In any case, I point out that her viewpoint and fashion sense may be related to her regular use of cannabis, which is well known to cause in some regular users anxiety and paranoia.

Oh? Drug users can be spotted by their clothing? Gee, that should make it easy for the drug squad to nail down those critters!

It isn't character assassination, it's just an inconvenient fact you choose to ignore.

Since I have addressed her drug use, I am hardly ignoring it.

No, she posits the only four solutions to the catastrophic scenario she has constructed, and says choose one. Stop trying to put "promoting" into my mouth, Claus.

I'm sorry, but your wording consistently points to you claiming that she does promote these solutions.

They aren't ruses. You're putting words in my mouth, Claus, so try to take it like an adult when I point them out.

But why not simply clarify your stance, instead of dancing around the issue?

How so? Where have you picked up this idea that the world's population is too high, and unsustainable? That idea was posited in the 1970s and its still wrong today.

Where did I say that the world's population is too high? Please point out where. Yes, you know the drill.

The problem isn't so much sustainability, but distribution. People are still dying from hunger. Almost 800 million people are undernourished. That's almost 3 times the population of the United States. Almost 200 million children under 5 are undernourished.

Then you've swallowed a lot of environmentalist propaganda hook, line and sinker. Global warming is fact, but temperatures have been rising since the beginning of the 17th Century well before any rise in carbon dioxide and before the Industrial Revolution.

But carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane is also a factor, and a lot of that comes from cows. It fits very well with the steady increase in farming after the Middle Ages.

You also know that when Erik the Red discovered Greenland in 973 it could support the growing of crops, something impossible today as its too cold, indicating that 1000 years ago temperatures were generally higher than today. That Viking colony collapsed and starved to death as the world plunged into the Little Ice Age.

Nobody is disputing that Earth has experienced fluctuations in temperature.

Historically the growth of civilisations has happened during warm periods and the collapse of civilisations and civil war and strife have happened during cold periods.

What is so scary about rising temperatures? During warm periods deserts contract while during cooling they expand. Which would you rather have?

Scary? You bet. If the temperature rises a little too much, I will drown, together with the rest of the population of Denmark, Holland and all other places that are near sea level. We will see an immense upheaval of the environment, where everything is uncertain. Bad idea. Our economies and societies depend on a stable, predictable climate.

Are you suggesting that we should perhaps work hard to increase the temperature?

I diss her prognosis as ludicrous and her diagnoses as extreme apocalyptic claptrap that I thought I'd never see outside of a fundamentalist sect.

My advice to you would be the same as to Susan Blackmore - if you want to understand the real state of the world, don't rely on pressure groups and if you're near someone who likes altering her mind - don't inhale.

My advice to you would be to state what you would do about these problems. It is easy to simply dismiss ideas for solutions, but it seems inordinately difficult for you to come up with something better.

 

[luchog]

I would agree with you. But you are putting words in other peoples mouths in this instance and then demanding they justify those words.

I see you've met Claus. Despite his claims at skepticism, his posts consist either of preaching his own views; or various logical fallacies used in place of cogent argument, which he rarely ever provides. Good luck trying to get anything meaningful out of him, most of the rest of us have given up.

 

[Rolfe]

Some of us are still trying. He's got the hide of a rhinocerous, though.

Rolfe.

 

[Gayle]

What is eco-fascism?

I've been away for a few days and missed much of this discussion. Back at post# 22, I ask Diamond for his definition of eco-fascism. I don't know what that's supposed to mean, except it sounds pretty bad. Very bad, downright awful.

I've read the thread, but I went pretty fast. I didn't see an answer to my question.

What is the definition of eco-fascism that's being used here? Am I an eco-fascist because I support air quality standards or the gasoline environnmental rules that were just suspended by President Bush?

Just want to know.

Thank you.

 

[Diamond]

I've been away for a few days and missed much of this discussion. Back at post# 22, I ask Diamond for his definition of eco-fascism. I don't know what that's supposed to mean, except it sounds pretty bad. Very bad, downright awful.

I've read the thread, but I went pretty fast. I didn't see an answer to my question.

What is the definition of eco-fascism that's being used here? Am I an eco-fascist because I support air quality standards or the gasoline environnmental rules that were just suspended by President Bush?

Just want to know.

Thank you.

I would describe eco-fascism as the desire to collectivise and control the world economy, the prioritize protection of the environment (which means controlling all aspects of it to keep it stable, whatever that means) above any other consideration, to outlaw all expressions of dissent against this agenda.

No, I would not describe you as an eco-fascist.

 

[Diamond]

You are being deliberately dishonest here. As Joshua has pointed out, you are blaming people for things they did not know.

First of all, he did not die in front of his wife. Second, the news that his wife was pregnant came a day after the jokes were cracked.

You distort the truth and use that to attack skeptics. Talk about perversity.

Ah yes, I attack skeptics for insensitivity for making jokes about someone's death. I then point out that his pregnant wife was there.

No he did not die exactly in front of his wife - he died when he left the room to investigate strange creaking noises. How exactly is that a distortion? What distance qualifies as "in front of his wife"?

I think you're desperate to exonerate yourself, Claus.

Oh? Drug users can be spotted by their clothing? Gee, that should make it easy for the drug squad to nail down those critters!

Sometimes they can be spotted for their wacko ideas. Which this is one of them.

Since I have addressed her drug use, I am hardly ignoring it.

You are ignoring the consequences of drug use - and I don't mean bad dress sense.

I'm sorry, but your wording consistently points to you claiming that she does promote these solutions.

You behave like a machine with all forward gears and no reverse. I did not use the word "promote". You did. Just get over it.

Where did I say that the world's population is too high? Please point out where. Yes, you know the drill.

You said:

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.

By the way, the 1970s called. They want their scares back.

The problem isn't so much sustainability, but distribution. People are still dying from hunger. Almost 800 million people are undernourished. That's almost 3 times the population of the United States. Almost 200 million children under 5 are undernourished.

True. So what has that got to do with trying to control the climate with a futile economic pact that won't make any difference to climate?

Furthermore, what has this got to do with what Susan Blackmore said? She writes that to attempt to feed the hungry and bring people out of poverty would be to allow the extinction of the human race by an angry Gaia. Which would you support? Let them starve to death?

But carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane is also a factor, and a lot of that comes from cows. It fits very well with the steady increase in farming after the Middle Ages.

As you well know, correlation is not causation. By the way, only recently was it discoveres that 30% of the methane in the atmosphere comes from plants. Furthermore methane in the atmosphere peaked in 2000 and has fallen since.

Nobody is disputing that Earth has experienced fluctuations in temperature.

And therefore why are we doomed when climate continues to fluctuate as it always has done?

Scary? You bet. If the temperature rises a little too much, I will drown, together with the rest of the population of Denmark, Holland and all other places that are near sea level. We will see an immense upheaval of the environment, where everything is uncertain. Bad idea. Our economies and societies depend on a stable, predictable climate.

If so then warming is definitely for you, since in warm periods storminess and weather extremes are reduced. By the way, are you sure you're going to drown? As far as I can tell Denmark is rising due to post-glacial rebound just like Sweden, producing a net sealevel fall.

Are you suggesting that we should perhaps work hard to increase the temperature?

No. I'm suggesting that you've swallowed a lot of unscientific rubbish about what happens when temperatures rise. Temperatures will rise and fall. What is absolutely certain is that there is no such thing as a "stable climate" on Earth.

My advice to you would be to state what you would do about these problems. It is easy to simply dismiss ideas for solutions, but it seems inordinately difficult for you to come up with something better.

Why should I produce "solutions" when I don't accept the premise? What caused you to accept the premise?

In fact you've danced around the premise of the posting. Why have you accepted such a bleak apocalyptic view of the world?

 

[antihippy]

Is the world about to end? (Again? I've heard the claim too many times before)

I think it was George Carlin who said, "The end of the world? What hubris! The world will not end, it will go on - just without us." Or something like that. I've been trying to find the exact quote - without success.

I think more than one idea is getting mixed up in all the exchanges in this thread.

Is the world going to end? No. That is patently absurd. The world will not end until it is swallowed by the Sun. Similarly life will go on with or without us.

Will there be a dawn without humanity? Yes. Almost certainly. All things come to an end after all. If you believe the hype we are not long for this world: either we get off or we go the same way as the Dodo ... (hype I think)


Now that I got that out of my system.

I don't see the eco fascism in that article.

Blackmore simply points out that some stark choices need to be made and that they are coming sooner than people think. There is no demand that we switch off our computers and head back to flint.

If the global warmign catastrophe comes to pass then a lot of people will die, a lot of people will be on the move and the UK may be somewhere that might be attractive. The residents of the UK may be forced to a difficult choice: let the refugees in (possibly ruining whatever is left of the country) or keeping them out. I can't find the bit where she advocates a particular choice.

 

[Luke T.]

Blackmore's conclusion:

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.

Seems to me she is plainly saying that our current behavior of looking out for the poorer parts of the world is the wrong way to go.

So I'll say it. She's preaching social Darwinism. Screw the rest of the world, don't let them catch up to us or we'll all die. We need to flush them. Now.

She says "if we fail to make any decisions", meaning the ones she listed, then we are doomed.

Guess she is in a hurry to start.

 

[CFLarsen]

Blackmore's conclusion:



Seems to me she is plainly saying that our current behavior of looking out for the poorer parts of the world is the wrong way to go.

So I'll say it. She's preaching social Darwinism. Screw the rest of the world, don't let them catch up to us or we'll all die. We need to flush them. Now.

She says "if we fail to make any decisions", meaning the ones she listed, then we are doomed.

Guess she is in a hurry to start.

She is not the one advocating social Darwinism. She is saying that it will probably be the solution made by people in the rich west.

 

[Rolfe]

No, as I understood the passage quoted, she's saying that because the rich west won't practise social Darwinism (that is, leave the untermensch to starve), then "Gaia" (God help us!) will be overloaded. Sounds very much like the advocacy of social Darwinism to me.

In practice the rich west doesn't seem to be very effective at the job of feeding the hungry, so this may affect her conclusions, but it does seem very much as if she's suggesting in that passage that the population should be reduced by failing to provide humanitarian aid.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah, Diamond, I never thought I'd see the day I'd be agreeing with you in a climate change thread, but it looks that way today. I've just read the actual article, and I agree, she's completely out to lunch. Smoking something seriously unwise.

"Billions of people are going to die in the next few decades"? Oh, come on. I certainly have misgivings about the longer-term situation for our civilisation, but we're nowhere close to a scenario for this sort of devastation in this sort of time scale. Current population is what? Six billion? So she's postulating that at least a third of the population of the planet is going to perish by flood or drought within 40 or 50 years?

Call it what you like, I think she's lost it.

Rolfe.

 

[Luke T.]

She says right at the top that the planet can only support one or two billion people, and that we are a plague on the planet.

Going from her belief that the planet can only support up to two billion, then six billion is unsupportable and therefore at least four billion are going to be purged by Gaia.

She states plainly that the developing countries, by the very nature of their development, are going to lead to this inevitable catastrophe, and we need to stop making decisions which are aiding their development. Now. For the sake of the survival of the developed countries.

 

[kittynh]

well, I know several people that contend that our saving lives in AFrica only leads to the loss of more life in the future. The people we save now are only going to starve in the future.

IF the environment cannot sustain the amount of life, then you have to supply food, water, shelter. I don't think it is really such a hardship on developed nations. More of there has to be a better method than just taking care of people instead of having them able to care for themselves. You can't save their lives at one point without giving them the ability to sustain life in the future.

If we are unwilling to help change the culture that makes having as many babies as possible the norm, and are unwilling to invest in birth control (thanks Bush) then are we helping these people in the long run?

As for AIDS, there is a very real belief among many Africans that the West brought that disease to Africa via vaccinations. This may be a woo woo belief, but not to many Africans.

 

[Luke T.]

well, I know several people that contend that our saving lives in AFrica only leads to the loss of more life in the future. The people we save now are only going to starve in the future.

IF the environment cannot sustain the amount of life, then you have to supply food, water, shelter. I don't think it is really such a hardship on developed nations. More of there has to be a better method than just taking care of people instead of having them able to care for themselves. You can't save their lives at one point without giving them the ability to sustain life in the future.

If we are unwilling to help change the culture that makes having as many babies as possible the norm, and are unwilling to invest in birth control (thanks Bush) then are we helping these people in the long run?

As for AIDS, there is a very real belief among many Africans that the West brought that disease to Africa via vaccinations. This may be a woo woo belief, but not to many Africans.

Blackmore's apocalypse is a global warming based theory. Developing nations which are being raised technologically to burn more fossil fuels like us is what is bad. We can't let them catch up to us, is what she is saying.

As someone said sarcastically in another thread, Asia is sucking up all the gas on the international market that is rightfully America's.

 

[Diamond]

Ah, Diamond, I never thought I'd see the day I'd be agreeing with you in a climate change thread, but it looks that way today. I've just read the actual article, and I agree, she's completely out to lunch. Smoking something seriously unwise.

Painful, isn't it?

I don't think this is a global warming/anti-global warming sentiment particularly. This is a the-world-is-about-to-end-and-all-we-can-do-is-save-ourselves sentiment. I don't accept that even amongst people who think man-made global warming is real, they would subscribe to these extremist views.

"Billions of people are going to die in the next few decades"? Oh, come on. I certainly have misgivings about the longer-term situation for our civilisation, but we're nowhere close to a scenario for this sort of devastation in this sort of time scale. Current population is what? Six billion? So she's postulating that at least a third of the population of the planet is going to perish by flood or drought within 40 or 50 years?

Call it what you like, I think she's lost it.

Rolfe.

Completely agreed on that one.

Yes, the world faces challenges, but neither the premise nor the solutions are remotely realistic.

 

[Rolfe]

She says right at the top that the planet can only support one or two billion people, and that we are a plague on the planet.

Going from her belief that the planet can only support up to two billion, then six billion is unsupportable and therefore at least four billion are going to be purged by Gaia.

She states plainly that the developing countries, by the very nature of their development, are going to lead to this inevitable catastrophe, and we need to stop making decisions which are aiding their development. Now. For the sake of the survival of the developed countries.

That's what she says. She states "I know this." At the risk of a copyright infringement, "Evidence?"

Note that I'm specifically referring to her "few decades" time scale here. But also, to the concept that it is impossible for the planet to support six million people, even if optimally managed.

Rolfe.

 

[Jimbo07]

Painful, isn't it?
I don't accept that even amongst people who think man-made global warming is real, they would subscribe to these extremist views.

I don't, anyway.

I wonder if alarmism isn't good PR, though. Sometimes it seems like people aren't motivated to action by anything short of an extreme position. Just curious...

 

[mumblethrax]

Seems to me she is plainly saying that our current behavior of looking out for the poorer parts of the world is the wrong way to go.

No. What she's plainly saying is that the minimal support we give to the third world today is nothing like enough to address current humanitarian crises, and that there's no reason to expect that this would improve in the face of a worsening crisis.

 

[Rolfe]

No. What she's plainly saying is that the minimal support we give to the third world today is nothing like enough to address current humanitarian crises, and that there's no reason to expect that this would improve in the face of a worsening crisis.

I don't agree. I don't agree that she's plainly saying anything of the sort. Here is the relevant passage.

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.

She has said earlier that the world can only support 1 or 2 billion people. No ifs, no buts, no suggestion that if only we in the west were more effective in our foreign aid then far more could be supported. She has categorically stated that 6 billion is unsustainable.

She has categorically stated that within the next few decades, billions are going to die. Her article is really about whether the "landing" can be controlled so that the eventual outcome is the one we would prefer. Every scenario consists of a lot of people dying, and all she can suggest is that we might choose who should die and who live, or that we should try to defend our own interests so that somebody lives, rather than trying to share with everyone which would result in everyone dying.

It is perfectly clear to me that she means that any aid to poorer countries is counter-productive insofar as it prevents people from dying. I really don't see how you can interpret it any other way.

Rolfe.