Susan Blackmore contracts apocalyptic fever

[Rolfe]

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.

Bang alongside you here. Although I like to hope your take on the global warming situation is correct, I see too many reputable scientists arguing cogently on the other side to be sanguine about the matter. Nevertheless, as I interpret their arguments, it is that we are currently headed for the rocks, and that we may only have a few decades to turn this tanker around. It is not anticipated, however, that there will be any wholesale wreck for a substantially longer period of time.

If dear Susan had postulated her scenario occurring a few centuries in the future then I might have taken her a bit more seriously. Also, though I haven't really looked into the matter, I have read a number of perfectly sensible opinions that the planet can support at least the present population and some more, if only we got ourselves organised. The "imminent apocalypse" she portrays is simply scaremongering.

I always disliked the woman, for reasons I suspect you wouldn't appreciate. I had no idea about the drug habits, and I'd never seen her with unconventional hair colouring. I agree, this does have a bearing on how we view her opinions. On the face of it, just judging by that article, she's completely out to lunch. Now add what you posted about the substance abuse, and I think we have a picture here.

Rolfe.

 

[mumblethrax]

She has categorically stated that 6 billion is unsustainable.

That's true.

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.

That's also true, see my earlier post in this thread.

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.

You could interpret it to mean that the kind of aid we provide is counter-productive, inasmuch as it postpones (and possibly worsens) a Malthusian crisis by making the third world dependent on unsustainable resources without addressing the underlying causes or the environmental impact of burgeoning human population, and that we do this out of a sense of guilt, rather than a real commitment to solving these problems.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, you seem to have interpreted it like that. So tell me, where at all in her essay do you see any suggestion that might be interpreted as advocating better and more effective third world aid as one possible way to go?

She doesn't. She is entirely focussed on the absolute inevitability of a population of 6 billion being unsustainable, and the necessity of addressing the matter. She doesn't even postulate that current aid strategies are ineffective or inefficient. Her entire thrust is to assume that they are indeed propping up the population to at least some extent, and thus are counter-productive.

Look at the title. Survival of the Selfish.

Certainly, there is a little snide hint that the rich west is only acting out of guilt rather than out of real concern for the poor of the third world, but the rest of your interpretation doesn't seem to me to be sustainable.

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

I always disliked the woman, for reasons I suspect you wouldn't appreciate. I had no idea about the drug habits, and I'd never seen her with unconventional hair colouring. I agree, this does have a bearing on how we view her opinions.

Why on Earth for?

 

[Luke T.]

Why on Earth for?

If someone says they get their ideas by taking drugs which alter one's perception of reality, that certainly explains a lot.

 

[Luke T.]

I can honestly say that without cannabis, most of my scientific research would never have been done and most of my books on psychology and evolution would not have been written.

Or I might sit out in my greenhouse on a summer evening among my tomatoes and peach trees, struggling with questions about free will or the nature of the universe, and find that a smoke gives me new ways of thinking about them.

Um. Yeah, okay.

 

[CFLarsen]

So, her conclusions are false because she smokes pot? Not because her conclusions are based on falsehoods?

That doesn't sound very skeptical to me. What happened to evidence?

 

[kevin]

Does somebody own a bunch of artic tundra waiting to be turned into fertile farmland or something? Sheesh!

this is what makes me think this is Canada's fault.

 

[kittynh]

I kind of agree with her point of not helping nations develop, but not for global warming. More for why does having 2 cars and a refridgerator make you "successful"?

 

[mumblethrax]

So tell me, where at all in her essay do you see any suggestion that might be interpreted as advocating better and more effective third world aid as one possible way to go?

I didn't. Where in her essay did you read that current aid is counter-productive and shores up an unsustainable population? My sense is that she feels we might continue to apply the same methods as the humanitarian crisis reached a boiling point, and that under those conditions it might be worse than doing nothing: inadequate means that lead to disastrous ends.

Her entire thrust is to assume that they are indeed propping up the population to at least some extent, and thus are counter-productive.

Nowhere in the article does this argument occur. Her entire thrust is that we would have to determine what it is we're trying to preserve before we acted in such a world, otherwise we might take actions that result in the worst of all worlds.

Certainly, there is a little snide hint that the rich west is only acting out of guilt rather than out of real concern for the poor of the third world, but the rest of your interpretation doesn't seem to me to be sustainable.

No interpretation is likely to be sustainable on the strength of a single sentence. This attempt to discover her political philosophy and her opinion about humanitarian aid is an exercise in speculation no less problematic than the article itself, and I'm fairly certain that it's little more than an ad hom.

If you and Diamond want to question her premises, that's fine; I don't think her certainty is warranted, either. But these political epithets are not becoming of a skeptic.

 

[CFLarsen]

But these political epithets are not becoming of a skeptic.

Politics and skepticism don't mix.

 

[Diamond]

So, her conclusions are false because she smokes pot? Not because her conclusions are based on falsehoods?

That doesn't sound very skeptical to me. What happened to evidence?

That's what I'd like to ask Blackmore:

Or I might sit out in my greenhouse on a summer evening among my tomatoes and peach trees, struggling with questions about free will or the nature of the universe, and find that a smoke gives me new ways of thinking about them.

Evidence?

Personally I think its unlikely that she's going to get a good view of the Earth when she is 15 miles above Neptune most of the time.

 

[Rolfe]

Diamond, I entirely agree!

I had no idea about the drug habits, .... I agree, this does have a bearing on how we view her opinions. On the face of it, just judging by that article, she's completely out to lunch. Now add what you posted about the substance abuse, and I think we have a picture here.

So, her conclusions are false because she smokes pot? Not because her conclusions are based on falsehoods?

That doesn't sound very skeptical to me. What happened to evidence?

Claus, once more, meet Mr. Straw Man. Mr. Straw Man, meet Claus.

Where did I say her conclusions were false because she smokes pot? I said the news that she smokes pot has a bearing on how we view her opinions, and illuminates the observation regarding the contents of that article, that she's completely out to lunch.

If you think her arguments are sound, and the article rational, then defend them, rather than inventing things I didn't say to attack my criticism.

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

Of what? That smoking pot makes you think of things differently? I don't think we need more evidence of that.

Personally I think its unlikely that she's going to get a good view of the Earth when she is 15 miles above Neptune most of the time.

She is talking about how she thinks about things.

Do you think her conclusions are false because she smokes pot?

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't. Where in her essay did you read that current aid is counter-productive and shores up an unsustainable population? My sense is that she feels we might continue to apply the same methods as the humanitarian crisis reached a boiling point, and that under those conditions it might be worse than doing nothing: inadequate means that lead to disastrous ends.

Nowhere in the article does this argument occur. Her entire thrust is that we would have to determine what it is we're trying to preserve before we acted in such a world, otherwise we might take actions that result in the worst of all worlds.

No interpretation is likely to be sustainable on the strength of a single sentence. This attempt to discover her political philosophy and her opinion about humanitarian aid is an exercise in speculation no less problematic than the article itself, and I'm fairly certain that it's little more than an ad hom.

If you and Diamond want to question her premises, that's fine; I don't think her certainty is warranted, either. But these political epithets are not becoming of a skeptic.

I don't regard this discussion as a political matter, though I can see how it might be regarded as such. If I am in any way ad-homing Blackmore, it is in my suggestion that her use of mind-altering drugs might make her analysis somewhat less than compelling.

I simply don't see where you are getting the implication that she is specifically criticising inadequate or inefficient aid, and might therefore take a different view of an efficient and productive aid effort. She seems to me never to judge the aid effort as either effective or not, and to regard it as a bad thing without any qualification. I'd be interested if you could explain which part you are reading, and how, to come to any different conclusion.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Do you think her conclusions are false because she smokes pot?

I think her premises are mistaken. And I think she might have come to these mistaken views because of her use of mind-altering drugs.

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think her premises are mistaken. And I think she might have come to these mistaken views because of her use of mind-altering drugs.

Why?

She's not the only one with these views, and I seriously doubt that all who share her concerns have used mind-altering drugs.

Do you?

 

[Rolfe]

Can you perhaps show us a few examples of respected sources who know that

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

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you perhaps show us a few examples of respected sources who know thatRolfe.

That follows logically. If the average life span is, say, 60, a lot of people will die within the next 30 years.

Do you think that all who share her views have come to these views because they have taken mind-altering drugs?

 

[mumblethrax]

I don't regard this discussion as a political matter, though I can see how it might be regarded as such. If I am in any way ad-homing Blackmore, it is in my suggestion that her use of mind-altering drugs might make her analysis somewhat less than compelling.

I don't see much reason to bring up her hair color or you personal dislike of her, either.

I simply don't see where you are getting the implication that she is specifically criticising inadequate or inefficient aid, and might therefore take a different view of an efficient and productive aid effort. She seems to me never to judge the aid effort as either effective or not, and to regard it as a bad thing without any qualification. I'd be interested if you could explain which part you are reading, and how, to come to any different conclusion.

If you'll recall, it was you who came to a conclusion about the implications of that statements, here:

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.

My response was to point out that this is nothing like clear, and that there are conceivable alternative explanations for the statement. It's very easy to interpret it another way; the most obvious is that statements about the utility of humanitarian aid under radically different conditions should not be construed as applying to current conditions.