Love the discussion this has fostered, Asa - congratulations! No small feat. On a personal note, while I share many of your concerns here, my position is quite different.
We are in accord about being troubled by the transition from quasi-democratic oligarchy to pseudo-democratic oligarchy, although I personally despise this term 'elites'. The people we are talking about surely do not warrant such a term, which they must have chosen for themselves. Elitists, certainly, but elite...? Not so much. Aristocrats in earlier ages had better claim to this word, although still I would resist it.
What frustrates me about climate change is its capacity to serve as a distraction from the serious environmental issues. Land use stands above all other issues here, yet is ignored. Why? Well, who owns the land...?
Regarding 'Anthropocene' I have a different objection. If we last a millennia or so, we will warrant a geological epoch. But to declare the start of such an epoch now is bizarre and hubristic. A better analogy is the K-T boundary, which is an event not an epoch. The last five hundred years will leave a geological imprint, but this does not an epoch make. People who claim a unique capacity to see at scale in time and space, as the aristocrats of the Club of Rome have so claimed, ought to be able to appreciate this. They do not.
Chief among all these problems is the obfuscation of all these issues in public discourse and the deployment of censorship to prevent any reasonable debate about it. This first and foremost must shift before we can grapple with the issues, which do not in fact threaten disaster on a scale of years, as is so often claimed, but of centuries or tens of centuries or (to be entirely frank) who-knows-how-long. But whatever the true picture, there is plenty of time for reasoned debate. It would be great if we were allowed to engage in this discourse in public instead of being both excluded and silenced by the elitists. How wonderful it is, therefore, that there are oases like this one where such discussion may yet take place.
I've been trying to understand what makes people believe so uncritically in the stories of 'anthropogenic climate change' and the human 'population bomb'. They're not even very well- developed stories, at least not in the way the virus narrative is. They're actually silly and naive. For instance, how can anyone believe that CO2, a substance so obviously essential to life, could be toxic and dangerous?
For years now I've found it impossible to have a reasonable conversation about CO2 with even the most otherwise reasonable people. There must be something about climate change that captures the religious part of the modern imagination like no other story.
Maybe it's environmentalism's misanthropy that marks its greatest selling point. We love to hate ourselves nowadays: "Human beings are parasites!" I hear that a lot. So demonizing CO2 may be a stroke of genius on the part of the influence peddlers and social psychologists on the globalist payroll, who helped develop the modern version of the climate myth with CO2 as the archvillain. I mean, every single human activity generates CO2, even breathing . . .
What ever happened to CO? I thought that was the pollutant we didn't want and that's what was being produced by burnt fuel? Did the science change that much?
This is one of those moments where I’d rather be sitting around a table with some food and drink and batting around ideas… These are complex interwoven themes at play here.
Some “big names” and thinkers have said “our greatest danger is X” where X equals climate change, racism, centralized government, (or perhaps, even X itself standing in as proxy for the media.)
I believe such observations are downstream of the actual problem.
I believe the actual problem (or challenge, if you prefer more comforting language) is that the ramifications of our technology have exceeded our planning and forecasting abilities. We don’t understand the implications of our technology. We think that “good intentions” alone are sufficient to guarantee a good outcome.
This is not the case.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and we’re building 12 lane divided mega highways, proud of our civil engineering ability.
If only there were some way or space or means of having our wisdom and vision catch up with our doing/making ability.
I certainly don’t want us to return to sitting around the campfire and having grandfather and grandmother tell sage stories about Great Bear but neither do I want to live in a perfected transactional soulless technological hellscape that has been optimized by centralized geniuses.
A bit of a ramble here… if you’re still reading thank you…. it really would be better to sit around the table and talk about such things.
Above all, thanks as always to our host here for the venue and the topics. 🙏
A symposium in the Classical style! That's the way to go.
I believe you're right RDM. Most evil is the result of good intentions. Very few are walking around rubbing their hands together plotting to cause evil, even in extreme circumstances. A sobering observation is that Hitler and the Nazis so often depicted in this manner by Hollywood, really weren't this sort of sinister (at least for the most part): they believed some heavy-handed measures were in order to "save" humanity. The National Socialists saw themselves as altruists. I think Meadows is that sort of person.
And then of course, yes. . . the technology our scientistic culture believes relays facts that we can depend upon to guide us, when in fact the technology is more of an added limb or sensory device subject to its own biases.
I like campfires and stories about Big Bear, and I think I'd do okay in that sort of culture. But I get what you're saying. It does seem like our tech is at a point where we might be able to get rid of a lot of dead weight and streamline, if we were wise.
Speaking of most evil being the result of good intentions, here's the 1st page of Chapter 4 from The Green Reich: Global Warming to Green Tyranny by Drieu Godefridi
IV. The Population Bomb (1968)
Hundreds of millions of people will starve in the 1970s and 1980s.
Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich demonstrated in The Population Bomb that human proliferation was leading to ruin and that a turning point condemning us to insecurity, famine, and ultimately, extinction, was imminent. There is to the discordance, as alleged by Malthus, between the arithmetic progression of resources and the geometric (exponential) progression of humanity, an appeal that has never been denied.
Ehrlich's work is based on classic Malthusianism: We now know that it is impossible to increase the production of food at a rate such that is in line with the growth of the population, says Ehrlich, advocating a wave of practical measures to curb the "cancer" of population: abortion, a radical means of population control, the introduction of sterilization chemicals into drinking water, a complete reversal of our value system, the change in our way of life, public re-education, and the forced sterilization by vasectomy of entire populations.
We can no longer say that we have not been warned. Dennis Meadows announced it as clear as can be said, the calamity they are planning to unite us to fall into their trap. Here is hoping the enough of us have learned not to succumb, the way we did when they tested us with Covid.
But for that, we need articles like this one to show the way we are being used.
Hi Asa,
Love the discussion this has fostered, Asa - congratulations! No small feat. On a personal note, while I share many of your concerns here, my position is quite different.
We are in accord about being troubled by the transition from quasi-democratic oligarchy to pseudo-democratic oligarchy, although I personally despise this term 'elites'. The people we are talking about surely do not warrant such a term, which they must have chosen for themselves. Elitists, certainly, but elite...? Not so much. Aristocrats in earlier ages had better claim to this word, although still I would resist it.
What frustrates me about climate change is its capacity to serve as a distraction from the serious environmental issues. Land use stands above all other issues here, yet is ignored. Why? Well, who owns the land...?
Regarding 'Anthropocene' I have a different objection. If we last a millennia or so, we will warrant a geological epoch. But to declare the start of such an epoch now is bizarre and hubristic. A better analogy is the K-T boundary, which is an event not an epoch. The last five hundred years will leave a geological imprint, but this does not an epoch make. People who claim a unique capacity to see at scale in time and space, as the aristocrats of the Club of Rome have so claimed, ought to be able to appreciate this. They do not.
Chief among all these problems is the obfuscation of all these issues in public discourse and the deployment of censorship to prevent any reasonable debate about it. This first and foremost must shift before we can grapple with the issues, which do not in fact threaten disaster on a scale of years, as is so often claimed, but of centuries or tens of centuries or (to be entirely frank) who-knows-how-long. But whatever the true picture, there is plenty of time for reasoned debate. It would be great if we were allowed to engage in this discourse in public instead of being both excluded and silenced by the elitists. How wonderful it is, therefore, that there are oases like this one where such discussion may yet take place.
With unlimited love,
Chris
I've been trying to understand what makes people believe so uncritically in the stories of 'anthropogenic climate change' and the human 'population bomb'. They're not even very well- developed stories, at least not in the way the virus narrative is. They're actually silly and naive. For instance, how can anyone believe that CO2, a substance so obviously essential to life, could be toxic and dangerous?
For years now I've found it impossible to have a reasonable conversation about CO2 with even the most otherwise reasonable people. There must be something about climate change that captures the religious part of the modern imagination like no other story.
Maybe it's environmentalism's misanthropy that marks its greatest selling point. We love to hate ourselves nowadays: "Human beings are parasites!" I hear that a lot. So demonizing CO2 may be a stroke of genius on the part of the influence peddlers and social psychologists on the globalist payroll, who helped develop the modern version of the climate myth with CO2 as the archvillain. I mean, every single human activity generates CO2, even breathing . . .
What ever happened to CO? I thought that was the pollutant we didn't want and that's what was being produced by burnt fuel? Did the science change that much?
This is one of those moments where I’d rather be sitting around a table with some food and drink and batting around ideas… These are complex interwoven themes at play here.
Some “big names” and thinkers have said “our greatest danger is X” where X equals climate change, racism, centralized government, (or perhaps, even X itself standing in as proxy for the media.)
I believe such observations are downstream of the actual problem.
I believe the actual problem (or challenge, if you prefer more comforting language) is that the ramifications of our technology have exceeded our planning and forecasting abilities. We don’t understand the implications of our technology. We think that “good intentions” alone are sufficient to guarantee a good outcome.
This is not the case.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and we’re building 12 lane divided mega highways, proud of our civil engineering ability.
If only there were some way or space or means of having our wisdom and vision catch up with our doing/making ability.
I certainly don’t want us to return to sitting around the campfire and having grandfather and grandmother tell sage stories about Great Bear but neither do I want to live in a perfected transactional soulless technological hellscape that has been optimized by centralized geniuses.
A bit of a ramble here… if you’re still reading thank you…. it really would be better to sit around the table and talk about such things.
Above all, thanks as always to our host here for the venue and the topics. 🙏
Just to say: I loved this comment, I wish there was a lot more of this kind of viewpoint to be found in the public discussion.
A symposium in the Classical style! That's the way to go.
I believe you're right RDM. Most evil is the result of good intentions. Very few are walking around rubbing their hands together plotting to cause evil, even in extreme circumstances. A sobering observation is that Hitler and the Nazis so often depicted in this manner by Hollywood, really weren't this sort of sinister (at least for the most part): they believed some heavy-handed measures were in order to "save" humanity. The National Socialists saw themselves as altruists. I think Meadows is that sort of person.
And then of course, yes. . . the technology our scientistic culture believes relays facts that we can depend upon to guide us, when in fact the technology is more of an added limb or sensory device subject to its own biases.
I like campfires and stories about Big Bear, and I think I'd do okay in that sort of culture. But I get what you're saying. It does seem like our tech is at a point where we might be able to get rid of a lot of dead weight and streamline, if we were wise.
Speaking of most evil being the result of good intentions, here's the 1st page of Chapter 4 from The Green Reich: Global Warming to Green Tyranny by Drieu Godefridi
IV. The Population Bomb (1968)
Hundreds of millions of people will starve in the 1970s and 1980s.
Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich demonstrated in The Population Bomb that human proliferation was leading to ruin and that a turning point condemning us to insecurity, famine, and ultimately, extinction, was imminent. There is to the discordance, as alleged by Malthus, between the arithmetic progression of resources and the geometric (exponential) progression of humanity, an appeal that has never been denied.
Ehrlich's work is based on classic Malthusianism: We now know that it is impossible to increase the production of food at a rate such that is in line with the growth of the population, says Ehrlich, advocating a wave of practical measures to curb the "cancer" of population: abortion, a radical means of population control, the introduction of sterilization chemicals into drinking water, a complete reversal of our value system, the change in our way of life, public re-education, and the forced sterilization by vasectomy of entire populations.
Chilling.
We can no longer say that we have not been warned. Dennis Meadows announced it as clear as can be said, the calamity they are planning to unite us to fall into their trap. Here is hoping the enough of us have learned not to succumb, the way we did when they tested us with Covid.
But for that, we need articles like this one to show the way we are being used.