Time magazine has a long, insightful, and sympathetic profile of Al Gore in the latest issue. The theme is "the last temptation of Gore," i.e., the temptation of running for president. But as the article makes clear, it's not that tempting, for all the reasons we've discussed here before. Anyway, read it -- it's extraordinarily good. Moving, even.
They've also got an excerpt from Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. I've got a copy on the way -- I'll report back once I've read the whole thing.
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 8:32 am
17 May 2007
History will look down on the Gore Inquisition as one of the darkest times in American intellectual history.
Like the witch hunts and Grand Inquisitions of Old, Al Gore, Head Inquisitor, tortured and maimed people for the sake of his adherence to the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion.
Gore will be seen as a butcher, one who destroyed decades of American scientific thought and reason and who shortcut the system of publication and peer review, in order for his self-aggrandizement.
Clearly being rejected soundly by the American electorate twice have turned him into a madman...how long his Reign of Terror will continue...we will have to wait and see...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:10 pm
17 May 2007
Permalink
ceti Posted 11:36 pm
17 May 2007
While I supported Nader in 2000, Gore has come a long way from his timid role as VP in the 1990s. We all know the lost opportunities of that decade, but 7 years of Bush darkness has revealed that the American Republic is in deep danger and rotting from within. I believe Gore is the only one who can save the Republic from further decline, that is if the forces of darkness and anti-reason don't swallow him up.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 12:36 am
18 May 2007
Whether Gore is right or wrong about the "cause" of global warming doesn't matter - at least to me. What matters is that we clean up. It doesn't take a scientist or genius to figure out that emissions are not healthy for breathing, why big cities smell so bad, or how people happen to get asthma and cancer when they live close to high-polluting industrial zones. Anyone ever been to Beijing? You feel sick with your first breath of air from that city.
This is an issue of health - global health. Who cares if we are or aren't causing global climate change? Why not reduce emissions anyway? It's not difficult. It's not expensive. We have the technology. Asking a business to reduce its emissions is like asking a person to get some exercise or eat healthy food: why the hell not? Many times it's even economically beneficial! What have we got to lose other than our unhealthy habits?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:05 am
18 May 2007
It most certainly matters. Look, lots of money was being spent to clean up standard pollution before Gore. No one disagreed on that.
But the detriment here is that Gore deflected interest away from traditional pollution clean up to a wild-eyed speculation about CO2 linked to Global Warming -- which is clearly due to natural causes.
Gore has set back environmental policy by decades...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:08 am
18 May 2007
To me, everything about Gore strikes me as the frenzied mob being stirred up by a crazed fool who can't get himself elected.
He hung his hat on a crackpot AGW theory and now he's backpedaling like mad, trying to say "oh, I just wanted to help pollution".
In the meantime, he's set back rational thought by years and created an IPCC monster that must be brought down.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:09 am
18 May 2007
When you think about it, Global Warming is not much different from Hell...the Hell of the Old Testament with Fire and Brimstone, Volcanoes exploding, the Sea Swallowing up things.
Al Gore has made himself Head Preacher of the Eco-Rapture.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Jones Posted 3:54 am
18 May 2007
Global Warming -- which is clearly due to natural causes.
In order to believe that, you'd have to believe in monsters. Which you do, apparently. You'd even have to believe that 1000s of the world top minds, people who are much smarter than either of us, are completely incapable of objective, critical thinking. Then you'd have to believe that Gore and the IPCC have some kind of power over independent science academies worldwide. The list goes on...
I know it feels good when you think you've got some kind of special knowledge that "those fools" around you don't. But it's almost never true. Most heretics are not Galileo.
I suggest you re-read your posts the next time you accuse someone of irrationality, demagoguery or religious fervour.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:33 am
18 May 2007
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page663?oid=91227 ...
Amidst all this, there are dissenting voices, which are seldom heard.
The Fraser Institute, a Californian think tank comprising 60 eminent scientists, found in a 60 page response to the IPCC report, that there is no globally consistent pattern in snow and rainfall patterns, in snow cover or snow depth. North of 55 degrees snowfall has increased in the past 50 years.
"Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting." The Fraser Institute questioned the independence of the IPCC.
It concluded politely: "There will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing."
"The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years and the land-based surface temperatures record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems....make interpretation of these trends difficult. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are under way."
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 4:39 am
18 May 2007
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Oh man, that was funny...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:42 am
18 May 2007
These tomes alone pummel the IPCC:
Solar and Celestial Causes of Global Warming
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html
Fraser Institute Study on Global Warming
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/GlobalWar ...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:48 am
18 May 2007
If we ignore the troll problem, it will get worse.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 5:31 am
18 May 2007
And to John Bailo himself: What difference does it make if we get fanatical about stopping emissions or not? What does it matter if the science is right or wrong, when we know what we're doing is healthy for everyone? There's nothing bad about doing a BETTER job of stopping pollution. There's nothing dangerous about being healthier.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:34 am
18 May 2007
I love big cars, far away holidays and I make a good living in the oil industry. I really want to be convinced that all those thousands of scientists have got it all wrong. Yet, there is nothing to hold on to for me. No straw to grasp. Stop trolling and repeating the same tired points and go and do some research. Come back and make me happy.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:57 am
18 May 2007
How come when ever I publish links to real papers and scientific works that concisely destrou the CO2-Global Warming link, you start crying "troll, troll".
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:58 am
18 May 2007
It is against the rules of Grist to attack the person.
I am not a troll.
I am one of the few people on Grist who support their arguments with facts and scientific peer reviewed work.
I'm sorry if AGW is crumbling all around you and the Hollywood supporters are starting to get cold feet about Al Gore's sanity.
But I'm just the messenger...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:10 am
18 May 2007
It doesn't matter who is right. This has become a bad situation for everyone concerned.
You disagree with almost eveyone else. You are not going to change anyone's mind. It must not be pleasant for you. Why not do something positive? Why not go to another board with people who share your values?
If you have a vision, why not elaborate on it elsewhere and see if you can attract people?
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:14 am
18 May 2007
Grist is the front line in the battle against charlatans and Global Warming Taxers.
I'll stay here long enough to watch the whole hoax go down the drain.
My vision is that Global Warming helps 97% of humanity.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:58 am
18 May 2007
Just like that tabletop cold fusion you were speaking about.
Why can't we see your genius?
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 8:09 am
18 May 2007
"A troll is a person who approaches a board with the specific intention of stirring things up, either as a goal in and of itself or as a means of attacking the board perhaps motivated by opposition to the ethos of the board."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
You are a troll by your own admission. You are opposed to the ethos of this board and you will stay until the "hoax" falls apart. Right?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:11 am
18 May 2007
"the ethos of this board"?
[wasn't James Brown The Ethos of the Board?]
First of all, Grist defines itself as
"Environmental News and Commentary"
Not as Al Gore's Fan Club.
Therefore, having an opinion that Global Warming is natural in origin and beneficial falls within the charter.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:17 am
18 May 2007
I'm trying to think of a word that is something like the inverse of a Troll. Ok, given your definition about a troll espousing an opinion opposite of the board to stir things up, the opposite would be some kind of heterodox zealot who resticts discussion to whatever narrow cause he or she supports...and then calls everyone else a troll.
I'm suggesting we call these people:
Barnacles...defn: A Barnacle is a person who haunts Usenet Newsgroups, Bulletin Boards and Fora. They offer a narrow interpretation of the purpose of the board, sometimes boarding on the absurd, or do to their own misinterpretation of the original charter. They make their living by calling almost anyone who disagrees with, or offers dissenting opinions a "troll" (which is grammatically incorrect because troll is a verb, not a noun...as in, to troll for shrimp).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 11:20 am
18 May 2007
The IPCC is the opinion of the scientific community. Why should you believe it:
The IPCC report was written by hundreds of climate experts from 130 countries and was based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. The report has itself undergone several layers of scrutiny; it was evaluated by thousands of other climate experts, critiqued by over a hundred IPCC-member governments, and open to public review.
The IPCC's previous report, released in 2001 with similar conclusions, was reviewed and endorsed by a blue ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences, and its conclusions were subsequently endorsed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. These groups are not composed of a bunch of funding hungry scientists screaming that the sky is falling, but rather distinguished researchers stating that the Earth is warming. Think about this. How often can you get at least 100 professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, to agree on any complex problem?
In the end, the IPCC reports are perhaps the most thoroughly vetted documents in the history of science. These reports are therefore widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming and how confidently we know it.
As a result of the firm basis in science, the IPCC reports are the most authoritative statement of what we know and how confidently we know it.
Let's compare to the IPCC report to the analyses that Jabaillo is pushing: Have they been peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists? No. Have they been endorsed by a blue-ribbon panel of the U.S. National Academy? No. Have their conclusions been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union? No. American Meteorological Society? No. AAAS? No. etc.
I think it's clear what the credible source of information on climate change.
PS: while jabaillo wants to argue "science," all he actually gives us are press releases and web sites that skeptics links to. These have not undergone multiple layers of review ... so they cannot compare to the IPCC in terms of credibility.
Permalink
Alexandra Posted 4:13 pm
18 May 2007
You're far too kind. The sources used here were Moneyweb (guess what they do?) Lew Rockwell (a Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist political site) and the Fraser Institute (a Libertarian/Conservative "think-tank"). Not only are they emphatically not unbiased, peer reviewed sources, they are in fact the antithesis of such. They are overtly, even proudly politically, financially and socially biased sites. (One must wonder how an honest skeptic could overlook the fact that they can only find support for their science on political and financial sites.)
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:12 pm
18 May 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:11 pm
18 May 2007
Much as Al Gore pays trolls to controvert these facts.
They cannot be denied.
Let's Enjoy The Heat!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Alexandra Posted 6:14 pm
18 May 2007
I think you mean the problem with denialists. A skeptic is something completely different. I'm a skeptic (your probably are too), this means as Asimov so clearly explained that "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
Denialists are a completely different kettle of fish. They come at the issue from the other direction. They will accept only that evidence which supports their pre-established, non-consensus belief. If that evidence (or what passes for evidence such as opinion pieces on political web sites) is of questionable provenance, well, so what? It's obviously (to them) correct, so it follows that therefore the source is a good one. (After all, it contains nothing but correct information.)
Of course this is why you can never, ever, ever convince one of these people through mere evidence or argument. They determine validity by whether something agrees with what they have already decided is to be the truth. Anything which disagrees with that Truth must be discredited, discounted or denied, but not actually considered.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:02 pm
18 May 2007
I agree with you strongly over the abuse of the term skeptic -
what this site is being parasitized by are plainly denialists -
for as Andrew remarked, they show no interest in evidence contrary to their chosen speel.
It seems to me a real mistake to engage directly with them in any way,
and about as productive as trying to talk cockroaches into behaving considerately.
It is a mistake in that denialists are then able to set the course of discussion away from addressing the intended focus.
This thread is a classic case in point.
Here is a pertinent excerpt from Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, whose veiling under tosh may have well been the goal of this latest troll fest.
Gore has after all aroused serious angst among the vested fossil interests.
Quote from "Time"
"Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason
Wednesday, May. 16, 2007 By AL GORE
Not long before our nation launched the invasion of Iraq, our longest-serving Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and said: "This chamber is, for the most part, silent--ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate."
Why was the Senate silent?
In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: "Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?" The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.
A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: "What has happened to our country?" People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.
To take another example, for the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.
It is too easy--and too partisan--to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us?
Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?
Faith in the power of reason--the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power--remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault. "
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 8:05 pm
18 May 2007
You are right of course and thanks for reminding us!
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:42 pm
18 May 2007
Perhaps someone can offer guidance to those many elders in my not-so-great generation who have evidently chosen to eschew science and, for the sake of the comforts in our lives alone, to hold onto our one and only God: wealth accumulation and the power associated with it. Regardless of the consequences to environmental health, human wellbeing, the future of life, and the integrity of Earth, we want more and more money and all the things derived from it. Yes, we are insatiable and call ourselves Masters of the Universe. We are loathe to live within the limits of biophysical reality, share resources, make behavior changes, and do what is necessary for assuring life as we know it to coming generations.
Please consider assisting me with an unfulfilled responsibility to young people and future generations...... a responsibility I call a "duty to warn".
Without success over the past several years, I have been inviting population scientists, demographers, biologists, economists and anyone else with appropriate expertise to openly comment on the apparently unexpected and unchallenged evidence on human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth from Russell P. Hopfenberg and David I. Pimentel. Where, pray tell me, might I find a deeply dedicated, top-rank brother or sister in the scientific community who possesses the necessary expertise and is willing to report in a professional manner on the Hopfenberg/Pimentel research?
According to this scientific evidence, humanity could soon come face to face with daunting global challenges, ones that result primarily from 1) the human overpopulation of Earth; 2) per human over-consumption of scarce resources and 3) the endless expansion of the global political economy in the relatively small, finite world God has blessed us to inhabit.
Thanks for your consideration of this feeble request for help. Please feel free to contact me directly with a name or else have the scientist get in touch with me by email. I will do whatsoever is necessary to fulfill this unlikely personal obligation, one for which I am evidently unprepared and poorly equipped.
Sincerely yours,
Steve
(Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D.,M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
1834 North Lakeshore Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-6733
USA
Tele: 919-967-5764
Email: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[22]='\"';l[23]=' 109';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 99';l[26]=' 46';l[27]=' 108';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 64';l[31]=' 89';l[32]=' 78';l[33]=' 79';l[34]=' 77';l[35]=' 76';l[36]=' 65';l[37]=' 83';l[38]=' 69';l[39]=' 83';l[40]=':';l[41]='o';l[42]='t';l[43]='l';l[44]='i';l[45]='a';l[46]='m';l[47]='\"';l[48]='=';l[49]='f';l[50]='e';l[51]='r';l[52]='h';l[53]='a ';l[54]='
Permalink
Jones Posted 12:22 am
19 May 2007
I'd also like to pick up on something you alluded to, and take it a step further: With a few exceptions on the environmentalist side, the ones who are truly acting in a religious manner in the climate debate, are libertarians: CEI, the Fraser Institute, etc...
Some deniers are simply ignorant, and don't believe AGW because they don't feel like it, or don't like environmentalists, or liberals, or whatever.
But for libertarians, AGW is seen as a threat to several core tenets of their worldview. (I wouldn't call these "articles of faith" so much as basic assumptions that underpin the intellectual constructs of their worldview--it doesn't quite equal religious faith, but parallels it closely.) Anyway. These are the people you find acting in a genuinely duplicitous and propagandistic way.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 12:49 am
19 May 2007
Permalink
Jones Posted 12:53 am
19 May 2007
I am one of the few people on Grist who support their arguments with facts and scientific peer reviewed work.
This self-serving statement is demonstrably and entirely untrue. With it, you signal that you've absolutely no intention to engage in honest, open-minded and respectful debate. You define your arguments to be supreior to any others (despite evidence to the contrary.) Your intention is to inform without extending that privilege to others.
Being a troll has nothing to do with what position you hold. A troll is anyone who's not interested in, or not able to have, an open-minded, two-sided conversation.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:33 am
19 May 2007
A troll is anyone who's not interested in, or not able to have, an open-minded, two-sided conversation.
A Barnacle is:
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?p=829 ...
defn: A Barnacle is a person who haunts Usenet Newsgroups, Bulletin Boards and Fora. They offer a narrow interpretation of the purpose of the board, sometimes bordering on the absurd, or do to their own misinterpretation of the original charter. They make their living by calling almost anyone who disagrees with, or offers dissenting opinions a "troll" (which is grammatically incorrect because troll is a verb, not a noun...as in, to troll for shrimp).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:39 am
19 May 2007
According to this scientific evidence, humanity could soon come face to face with daunting global challenges, ones that result primarily from 1) the human overpopulation of Earth; 2) per human over-consumption of scarce resources and 3) the endless expansion of the global political economy in the relatively small, finite world God has blessed us to inhabit.
exposes the AGW zealots as Crypto-Malthusians.
They are anti-humanist. They have no use for Man and think him below a tree frog. They cannot conceive that more humans, working in harmony can produce more, support more and make the world better. They take a mechanistic view of everything and degrade Mankind and the Human experience and contribution.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:42 am
19 May 2007
Quite the opposite...I'm trying to convince people that this, the Modern Warming, or Goldilocks Optimum, may be the beginning of civilization -- one where the increased heat will allow us to be more productive than ever before.
As far as taking action, I have emphasized supporting the Bush Energy Plan of hydrogen and fuel cells. Successes are abounding as the Chevy Sequel just broke a distance record for hydrogen fuel cell driving. Purdue just announced a way to create hydrogen at run time from an aluminum compound activated by water.
These are the activities I encourage. I discourage self-serving rock concerts by tired performers with worn out careers and faded unelectable politicians such as Al Gore who suppress all the information about the great things Bush has done for Energy Change in this country.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
tico89 Posted 3:11 am
19 May 2007
About the actual post, I don't know why everyone is so obsessed about Gore running for presidency, despite his repeated denials - I can't see why he would actually want to be president, and he certainly wouldn't want to run the risk of losing a race.
Bill - I think you're being a bit unfair on cockroaches.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:53 am
19 May 2007
As you say, arguing with trolls isn't the answer. A simple answer is Gar's suggestion that the creater of a thread be allowed to delete trollish comments. Why spend the effort on complicated schemes? Our energy is better used on other things.
John Bailo: As far as taking action, I have emphasized supporting the Bush Energy Plan of hydrogen and fuel cells. Successes are abounding... If you are a serious person, John, it should be apparent to you that this board is not the right place for you. There must be some site out there for environmentalist Bush supporters. You could elaborate your ideas with people whose values you share.
Monopolizing threads as you've been doing here is simply discourteous. Back-and-forth conversation is impossible. If you want to stay, please display better manners.
Your actions will show whether you are serious or are a troll.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:30 am
21 May 2007
Besides, isn't that exactly what John Bailo wants: to be censored so that he can have a reason to rail against Grist for its fascism and bias?
Permalink
hank Posted 3:35 am
22 May 2007
http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/montypython5.shtml
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:51 am
22 May 2007
Wow, I almost wet myself when I read JABailo's definition of a "troll": such abject shallow ignorance.
*A "troll" is most assuredly a noun, and is widely used as such in European fables and fairy tales. They are typically disgusting, useless, mean, aberrant creatures no one wants to see or deal with. Plus they may very well have such characteristics as abject shallow ignorance. And they often live in caves. Feel like looking in a mirror? Look it up.
*One emphatically does not "troll for shrimp". One catches shrimp using a trawling net, hence the term "shrimp trawler", being a vessel used to pull shrimp trawling nets behind it. LOOK IT UP. Or maybe you were referring to tripping up and deluding misguided shrimp with your lies and distractions.
*One catches finfish by "trolling" with a hook on a line on a fishing pole, and pulled behind a boat. Again, look....
Because these terms sound similar and have at least similar original functional applications, uh, being pulled through water to catch something, they may have a common origin, but to interchange them is in deed ignorance. And when trying to make some self-serving point while doing so compounds the ignorance.
So much for the self-serving trolls here. By comparison, a "barnacle" in the way you would apply it is above reproach.
For everyone else:
IN fact, this technique of clouding the issues and distracting people from the real issues is consistent with the theme of Gore's book. Stooges like the one referred to are merely weakly applying the same rhetorical technique they have learned from propagandists we have all heard of.
We do need to discuss real solutions and not mere bandaids.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 7:15 am
24 Aug 2007
According to Russell P. Hopfenberg and David I. Pimentel, culture may at times mesmerize human beings in that it gives rise to illusions of the world as it is. This research, like some evidence before it, seems to disturb (because it comes into conflict with) certain culturally derived notions held by members of a culture about what it means to be human and about the "place" of Homo sapiens in the natural order of living things. Scientific facts of this particular kind are uniformly difficult for people to see, I suppose, because such data have a way of undercutting the pedestal from which we look upon our fellow creatures, nature itself and the universe. We humans may introject culturally biased and scientifically unsupported transmissions (i.e., memes) that confuse human reasoning and promote a certain cortical conceitedness which is not helpful when trying to see what is real or to recognize certain requirements of reality. For a very long time cultural transmissions or memes appear occasionally and accidentally to pass from generation to generation, distorting human perceptions and making it difficult for us to see a scientific fact for what it is real about it.
When a psychological practitioner like myself thinks a patient is suffering from a mental illness, that determination is a matter of evidence-based clinical judgment. However, general standards of what is normal are not clinical judgments (and sometimes do not objectively correlate with reality), but are oten unverified matters of cultural norms and social conventions that are full of scientifically validated perceptions of reality alongside some misperceptions of what is real. Because some misperceptions are valued by those who share them, these memes get passed along AS IF THEY REPRESENTED REALITY.
In the cases of deeply disturbed mental patients, they are inclined to distort reality so drastically that their distortions are not widely held shared and held by other people. Instead, these mistaken impressions are labeled as examples of `craziness'. By contrast, people in governments, social organizations and cultures appear not to misperceive reality so sharply, yet distortions of what people perceive do remain.
A term of art in psychology is useful here, folie a deux. The term means that two people share an identical distortion of reality. This understanding leads to other terms, folie a deux million for a social order or folie a deux billion for a culture. These terms refer to misperceived aspects of reality commonly shared and held by many people of a government, a society, a culture. One way to define the highest standard of what is normal for the individual and for people in a particular socio-cultural aggregate is in terms of being able to see what is free of illusion, what is in scientific fact real. Hence, in taking note of the process of humankind becoming evermore aware of reality by means of the acquisition of valid scientific data through time, Homo sapiens can track the evolution of science.
From this perspective, nature is a perfected, self-regulating and self-sustaining system that has worked for millions of years, without human presence or input, and will likely continue for millions of years with or without human activities. Ancestors of Homo sapiens survived successfully on Earth for the past few hundred thousand years, and then some more. In all that time humankind presumably did not endanger itself, nor did we oddly expunge other creatures, massively degrade the Earth or recklessly dissipate its limited resources upon which our lives, other forms of life and even the global economy depend for their very existence.
In this context it is worth noting that something happened several thousand years ago. At some point not long after the end of the Ice Age Homo sapiens appear to have turned to growing and storing food and treating it as a commodity. As humans produced more food than the population needed for its immediate survival, our population numbers began going up, up, up and not up and down as do the population numbers of other species on Earth. Instead of continuing to exist as hunter-gatherers and collect food necessary for survival, Homo sapiens produced, stored and sold more and more food. The (agri)culture-al economy that developed over the last 8,000 to 11,000 years is forthrightly man-made, ever expanding, seemingly limitless and, just now, soon to become patently unsustainable at its current huge scale and its fully anticipated growth rate, and, therefore, in its present form. As this artificially designed economy has grown, human population numbers appear to have stopped fluctuating in a natural cycle as they likely had through unrecorded time. During the past few thousand years human numbers began to increase in an unhealthful, nearly exponential manner. For the past several hundred years global human population numbers have skyrocketed.
The longstanding and generally accepted theory of the"demographic transition" is descriptive not deterministic. The widely shared and consensually validated current evidence related to the automatic occurrence of a so-called demographic transition at 9.2 billion people around 2050 appears to be preternatural, culturally skewed and, therefore, scientifically unsound.
Looking at regions where population is increasing at a decreasing rate or at a country like Italy with its decreasing population numbers may be distracting us -- and must not blind us -- from the apparently unforeseen knowledge of our continuously increasing absolute global human numbers and their potentially profound implications. We wish to look at trees, but need to see the forest.
According to the unchallenged and virtually irrefutable research from Hopfenberg and Pimentel, human population numbers are continuing to increase worldwide as a result of the production of food in greater and greater quantities. These food resources are then made ever more available by sale and delivery into areas on the planet with low human carrying capacity, where human life in large numbers and other life cannot simultaneously be sustained.
Could it be that we are not making hunger go away by means of maximally expanding the food supply, but instead giving rise to billions of hungry people, extirpating biodiversity and undermining the integrity of global ecosystems?
Please note that 3.7 billion people exist these days in our planetary home on resources valued at less than $2 per day. That number of people is greater than the total number of people on Earth in the year 1950!
Certainly human beings have sophisticated, forward-planning cultures and a progressive world economy. And for all the wonders of our pyramid-like global economic scheme, still there is apparently not be a scientific basis for concluding human beings have broken the bonds of our placement among the creatures of the world. Nor have the conditions of the natural world likely been suspended somehow for human benefit. No, the Hopfenberg/Pimentel evidence indicate that certain biological and physical laws of nature likely apply to all creatures of Earth, including human ones.
Permalink