Speaking of pseudoscience, is the anthropogenic global warming movement of the 21st Century just a new and improved, repackaged version of the discredited eugenics movement of the early 20th Century?
Some interesting parallels are noted in this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbyjUnYmMs
The whole anthropogenic global warming debate is riddled with pitfalls, scaremongering and trying to win souls to the flock (on both sides). Some of the argumentations on both sides are pretty much debunkable (I liked Bjorn Lomborgs work in this field (a Scandinavian statistician who basically got all the figures from all the scientific sources and did what any statistician would do...put them in graphs, lists,....just to see what held stick and what didn't http://lomborg.com/ )
The notion that humans have no influence whatsoever is laughable since we ourselves and our societal works/industries/.... are embedded in the global climate. On the other hand, something I've heard very often: '...all the deniers are obviously paid by the fossil fuel industry...' is equally grotesque.
If fossil fuels are purely biotic (and I recently read a scandinavian study that postulated that 'fossil' fuels are at the very least partly abiotic) then whatever our future pattern of usage for obtaining energy, we'd still need 'them' for lots of things like everything plastic, fertilizer, medicine, petrochemical,...etc. Even making and installing a windmilll requires lots of 'fossil fuels' to get those big boys to produce 'clean energy' (in fact, some studies would discard a lot of their clean image, with the production side of those things).
So unless the scarcity of oil is not there as they claim, they should have nothing to fear from global warming. Instead they would have lots to gain....since the peak oil scare is on the band wagon of all these ideas (without taken a side what the case may be), they could make more profits, since scarcity or the idea of scarcity will get higher prices. But anyway, without further trying to speculate, oil companies are in my humble opinion not 'against the idea of anthropogenic global warming'....why would they be?
And since I am a bit of a history buff, there is indeed a darker side to the history of some of the people mentioned here (well....here we run into moral values...in that: do you find the basic idea of eugenics immoral (and no, not just the 'easy' negative eugenics (i.e. sterilization, etc.) but also the more ambiguous positive eugenics (things like getting the right people to bread, maybe even in these modern times making sure the new offspring have good genetics,....) Julian Huxley is someone to read up on if you are interested to learn more about the cross point of UN, Unesco and the britisch eugenics society.
Last edited by farbot; August 29th, 2012 at 12:32 PM. Reason: there/their-mistake....hate those (and probably have missed another somewhere else....)
Whether fossil fuels are biotic or abiotic has nothing to do with whether or not we need them for plastics, fertilizer, etc...Originally Posted by farbot
True, you need energy of some sort to build the structures that will provide a renewable supply but once they are in they will pay for themselves in time.Even making and installing a windmilll requires lots of 'fossil fuels' to get those big boys to produce 'clean energy' (in fact, some studies would discard a lot of their clean image, with the production side of those things).
It is unclear but it appears that you are saying that if oil is really scarce then there'd be nothing to fear from global warming due to CO2 emission. This does not follow. Coal burning also emits CO2. Also, "peak oil" does not suggest that oil suddenly disappears in the future. It means that it becomes harder and more expensive to get thus much more expensive. In the mean time, if releasing that carbon into the air affects climate it could have an impact at the same time that the cost of oil based energy and all related products gets higher and higher.So unless the scarcity of oil is not there as they claim, they should have nothing to fear from global warming.
Oil companies are against the idea of anthropogenic global warming because they want to sell as much oil as the ground will yield and people will burn. If people decide that burning oil is harmful and the amount of oil that can be burned is capped then the oil companies will loose money. Oil companies want to prevent people from switching to other energy sources as long as possible so they can keep demand high while prices continue to increase.since scarcity or the idea of scarcity will get higher prices. But anyway, without further trying to speculate, oil companies are in my humble opinion not 'against the idea of anthropogenic global warming'....why would they be?
No. Most plans for dealing with AGW take into account an increase in population to 10 Billion+, stabilizing naturally as countries reach developed status. Population control measures would take far, far, too long to have any effect on carbon emissions.
Whether fossil fuels are biotic or abiotic has nothing to do with whether or not we need them for plastics, fertilizer, etc...
Fossil fuels being purely biotic or not has everything to do with scarcity (in that purely biotic oil/gas coming from fossil sources has to run out, while abiotic sources would imply they could/would regenerate without meteorites having to kill everyone off and putting a layer of dust onto everybody for a few ages to turn them into liquid 'black gold'. (more on the Swedish science report)
Anton Kolesnikov1,2, Vladimir G. Kutcherov2,3 & Alexander F. Goncharov1
Abstract
There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes1, 2, 3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth's crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves4, 5. Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000-1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2-4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
Besides, organic oils have been used for plastic (Ford auto company even experimented with making the 'plastics' of a car out of hemp oil). Reasons for using crude oil or other sources are a question of cost-effectiveness, consumer-preferences,....
My point was, that if the peak oil theory is true (and I know about the gaussian curvature that model -presuming it is true- would take, so thank you for your explanation, but there was no need), we could turn down the fossil fuel consumption for transport and/or heating, but we'd presumable would still use a lot for all the petrochemical usage (untill the market would presumably change its cost-effectiveness beyond a certain point where alternatives would be cheaper).
Well, they will pay for themselves....there are studies that not all 'green' tech is as green as you and I may think. Consider the wind-mill won't last forever, a lot of times it can't be used (too little or too much wind), construction and material per wattage is smaller than you imagine,.... I am not against green tech...I just plac questions by hyped up bubbles that are so common with our market boom/bust cycles. In Belgium we had tons of people getting solar screens, but a study pointed out that without the royal subsidies the government gave, it would not have been 'paying for itself' at all. But still...not against alternative energy ideas, just against the hype.
I did not state what you read about scarcity of oil being linked to global warming itself. So unless the scarcity of oil is not there as they claim, they should have nothing to fear from global warming. What I ment with this statement is that with the theory of peak oil which presumably we passed (and according to some already did in the past....and I'll make a small wager will do in a couple of years encore une fois) they would steadily find it more and more difficult to get oil. Hence the product would become more and more scarce. But there would still be a need and at the moment since we are in no way anywhere near a full fledged alternative energy system, there would be more than enough need for society to pay lots of money in order to make this needed transition (again...in the model of peak oil and such). Scarcity is something that people strive for when it comes to commercial activity. (see the diamond industry if you are interested in an example)
Furthermore....unless you think that everybody in the oil industry is blind, they would already know much better than anyone of us that peak oil is a reality, companies like that tending to plan further than the next couple of months. Those companies are not just oil companies, they are large corporations with lots of assets, financial and otherwise, that they want to advance towards a 'greater yield'. Why would they destroy their own goose with golden eggs by mindlessly opposing anything that might stop their quick momentary gains if it will follow that 1. the economic system will eventually crash due to a tipping point where oil needs for basic economic continuation can not be delivered anymore at a reasonable working/financial cost and 2. the planet will be so polluted and warmed up that an economic crash totally disrupts their quick momentary gains
Either any question mark towards manmade global warming is funded by oil companies because they are stupid and can't foresee into the future (i.e. they know all too well that what they are doing is 'bad') or they genuinely believe that it is not going to be a problem so they fund these stories.
The 'it's just for economical gain'-argument is riddled with fallacy towards emotional appeal...those bad bad oil companies....they just want to sell oil and the good guys (i.e. Al Gore and Ken Ley, ex-Enron and one of the people behind the capping trade scheme) want to stop them. I hope the healthy dose of skepticism is not something that is just administered to those whacky conspiracy theories but would get pulled out in real life as well.
Oil companies are against the idea of anthropogenic global warming because they want to sell as much oil as the ground will yield and people will burn. If people decide that burning oil is harmful and the amount of oil that can be burned is capped then the oil companies will loose money. Oil companies want to prevent people from switching to other energy sources as long as possible so they can keep demand high while prices continue to increase.
As I stated above...corporations are not married to singular industrial activities. If they would genuinely see peak oil as the problem that it is claimed to be, it would seem to me that they would invest their money in the new up and coming industries of the future. Oil companies ar not mindless 'believers in oil'...they are crude and clever businessmen who know much more about making money than this simplistic view you (and countless others) at first sight seem to hold (btw...if I come of as attacking...my apologies). If you would think that their prime motive is money...and peak oil means that production costs will go up, while production itself will fall... if they would stick to their oil-guns, their energy market would get overrun by different alternatives that would get the necessary capital for investment (since people would be put off by the sky-rocketing prices). Again...in what world do you see this scenario of 'stupid oil companies' as plausible?
What is happening with the new 'green tech' (in Europe at the very least, I have to say I can't speak for the USA) is that governments have been flowing lots of tax payer money into these new technological industries and that a lot of companies (alas...also those bad bad oil companies) have reaped huge profits with the free money.
"These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation."
-Frederick C. Howe, in Confessions of a Monopolist (1906)
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3538...-5?dn=y&dnad=y (p166)
Last edited by farbot; August 29th, 2012 at 03:52 PM. Reason: typo
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
I believe that Juror No. 8 (and James Corbett) implies that the idea of overpopulation is linked to the AGW-scare (regardless if it is justified or not). Not if genuine pop control measures would have a fast and significant effect on carbon emissions. I do remember a talk by Bill Gates where he links global warming to population (quite clearly) with his formula of population x services x.... so the link between AGW and overpopulation is being made by some (doesn't have to be everybody to give rise to the supposed similarities)
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
Right, I understand that. And curbing population growth would certainly have an effect eventually, and it's a good idea. But whenever I've looked at projections, they never assume any kind of population reduction - the increase in population in the future is pretty much a given. There are lots of discussion about the relationship between population and global warming. The bottom line is:
The international team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration found that if humanity’s population grew along a slow growth path over the next forty years, it could account for 16 to 29 percent of the reduction in carbon emissions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from passing a catastrophic tipping point.
“If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution, especially in the long term,” says the study’s lead author, Brian O’Neill, an NCAR scientist.
Planetsave (http://s.tt/12u5B)
The problem is, that's probably not going to happen.
In conspiracy culture, efforts to curb population growth usually end up being characterized as genocide (or, in this case, eugenics). But they are not talking about population reduction - they are talking about reducing the rate of growth of population. Under even their most optimistic plans population will still grow.
Eugenics suggests that the decrease in population growth will target certain sectors, presumably the poor and the 3rd world. But if you think about it it would make more sense to target the rich, as their children will have far higher carbon footprints than the poor.
Poorer people have more children. Bill Gates plan for making them have less children actually amounts to making them less poor.
It's a contentious and misunderstood subject.
Well, just to play devil's advocate...if some people did have plans to 'curb' population in less than moral ways (causing wars, famine,... ) they would hardly advertise it by boldly stating that the population will reduce towards 2 billion in all of their future public projections... This would at least get people to look at these projections and wonder how they arrived at that figure. Which is by no means an argument that they are planning such a thing of course...just saying that in the theory of 'eugenicists want to curb the population of 'other folk' in less than moral ways' they'd hardly run advertising campaigns.
As I've already stated in a post, I am a bit of a history buff and I have read up on the whole social darwinist/eugenicist movement of the first half of the last century, which was much more widespread among leading intellectuals than commonly assumed (some people believe it was just a 'german fluke with gruesome consequences' while it actually started in the anglo-saxon world (I think that Hitler even makes a comment in Mein Kampf where he congratulates America on their eugenics policies)
The international team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration found that if humanity’s population grew along a slow growth path over the next forty years, it could account for 16 to 29 percent of the reduction in carbon emissions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from passing a catastrophic tipping point.
“If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution, especially in the long term,” says the study’s lead author, Brian O’Neill, an NCAR scientist.
The problem is, that's probably not going to happen.
In conspiracy culture, efforts to curb population growth usually end up being characterized as genocide (or, in this case, eugenics). But they are not talking about population reduction - they are talking about reducing the rate of growth of population. Under even their most optimistic plans population will still grow.
Eugenics suggests that the decrease in population growth will target certain sectors, presumably the poor and the 3rd world. But if you think about it it would make more sense to target the rich, as their children will have far higher carbon footprints than the poor.
Poorer people have more children. Bill Gates plan for making them have less children actually amounts to making them less poor.
It's a contentious and misunderstood subject.
Now, am I stating that the world is populated by an evil elitist uppercrust who will all send us into camps or some other eugenics scare story (that is highly remoniscent of end times bible stories... for some great historical context on that meme throughout the ages I would recommend Eugen Weber's Apocalypses. Prophecies, Cults, and Millennial beliefs through the Ages. A great read especially if one would be inclined to fall in the apocalyptical pitfall. http://www.plekos.uni-muenchen.de/2001/rweber.html
No, I don't believe in such tv/movie/...-scenarios.... Is that to say that an undercurrent of neo-eugenics/neo-social darwinism could not be thriving under the radar in our society (hidden because of the 'bad press' the theory had after WW II)...well, that's another matter.
It reminds me when we had a huge scandal in Belgium in the '90s. A health investigator got killed because he was tracking the hormone mobsters that had infested our meat products with lots of 'illegal' hormones. The guy got murdered and it opened up a can of worms. In the next days almost every butcher placed a sign that they only sold hormone-free meat....at which a Belgian comedian stated "...hmmm....where was all the other meat all of a sudden???"
In short...what I am asserting is that the memes and thoughts that flourished in the form of eugenics / social darwinism before wwII did by no means 'die' because it ended. History rarely works like that. It works more like a snake that sheds its skin.
Last edited by farbot; August 30th, 2012 at 09:42 AM. Reason: lay-out and repeating myself...should probably read these things more thorough before posting them
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
Eugenics though is not really about reducing the population, it's about improving the genetic composition of the population. I'm sure there are lots of people who subscribe to the master race theory, and I'm sure there are also lots of people who still think it would be a good idea to sterilize people with low IQ. But it does not necessarily follow that they want less of their master race.
Really the title of the thread should be "population growth reduction = Eugenics 2.0", as it's a much more straightforward case to make, with population growth reduction in the large being aimed at poor non-whites. Tying to AGW just smacks of climate change denialist spin.
They are linked.
The long-term goal of the Fabian Socialists is a one-world fascist state.
"Environmentalism" is only one of the new tools they are using to achieve that. They don't really care about eugenics. It was a tool that served its purpose.
Well, I could follow an argumentation where some people with a certain program try to steer the force of the green movement or environmentalism towards their own agendas (i.e. linking their agenda or trying to co-opt a certain movement).
As Buckminster Fuller once stated: don't stop forces, use them.
However, there are genuine concerns about our environment (even regardless of AGW) since we live in it... which makes it fairly important in my view, so I don't hold with the idea that everything 'green' is 'evil' or some sort of hidden 'fascism'.
But that people would try to co-opt it, it's almost a certitude. In early 20th century Russia after the Tsarist regime fell, some regions had a sort of anarcho-communism where the workers really took over the means of production. The Bolshevik Leninist regime crushed down those union initiatives for their own centralist political gains.
There are genuine problems in this world which lead to genuine group concerns, give rise to movements,.... and almost every time in history those movements were targeted. Which is actually quite logical of course (if you would take a moral neutral view at the situation)...if you can use a force to further your own political agenda...why wouldn't you? If a certain movement could endanger that agenda, again...why wouldn't you?
Bertrand Russel on the Webb's (and Fabian Socialism) http://www.anarchistic-tendencies.co...%20Russell.pdf
The problem of the taming of power is... a very ancient one. The Taoists thought it insoluble, and advocated anarchism; the Confucians trusted to a certain ethical and governmental training which should turn the holders of power into sages endowed with moderation and benevolence. At the same period, in Greece, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny were contending for mastery; democracy was intended to check abuses of power, but was perpetually defeating itself by falling a victim to the temporary popularity of some demagogue. Plato, like Confucius, sought the solution in a government of men trained to wisdom. This view has been revived by Mr and Mrs Sidney Webb, who admire an oligarchy in which power is confined to those who have the ‘vocation of leadership’. In the interval between Plato and the Webbs, the world has tried military autocracy, theocracy, hereditary monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and the Rule of the Saints—the last of these, after the failure of Cromwell’s experiment, having been revived in our day by Lenin and Hitler. All this suggests that our problem has not yet been solved.
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
You would not use force against others because doing so is immoral.
If you have the animal mindset that "might makes right", then of course the most vicious predator does win.
I prefer to work for a world not based upon rewarding whomever can be the biggest bully.
First of all, i did not use the term 'force' as you interpret it. We live a world of lots of forces : gravitational forces, physical forces of persuasion, verbal forces of persuasion, the force of people wanting or craving something,.... all these forces can be influenced in some way or another. Besides, what I do or not do, is not the same as what others do, so saying to someone: "using force is immoral" will not dissuade them if they themselves do not subscribe it.
I understand principles like non-violence and non-agression and hold great sympathy for them. But even they have their greyish murky zones. (what if somebody has a mental condition which makes him hurt others...will you use force on him? or better yet...what if this condition makes him want to hurt himself...he's not bothering others. Should we forcifully try to keep him from hurting himself?)
Secondly, I don't think that your remark about animal mindset and the vicious predator winning, is necessarily right. Not all evolutionary biologist prescribe or have in the past prescribed to the notion that evolution just works with the 'survival of the fittest'-principle (out of which logically follows : might is right)
Instead they also place great importance on the interspecial capability for cooperation for survival and succes. Would you rather be a strong mighty warrior all alone in a jungle full of dangerous critters? Or live in the same jungle, not as high and mighty but with a tribe backing you up? (the problem is ofcourse there is less 'jungle' around us...)
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
But you don't subscribe to them. You argue the opposite. You support the U.N. programs of forced sterilization and abortions of brown and yelow people. You argue the Platonic position of the 19th century British Empire that enlightened elites are evolutionarily justified in using force to impose their will upon the weaker masses "for the greater good".
I understand this mind-set. I live in Texas around Native Americans whose ancestors were genocided by it. I went to high school with Cambodian refugees who fled Pol Pot's Maoist "for the greater good" policies in Asia. I used to ride motorcycles with white National Socialists who told me the same thing you do, that "Collectivism Is Natural".
Your philosophy boils down to the irrational idea that a person does not own their own body. Don't be irrational. Be rational. Please.
Where in any of my writings have you read that I support UN programs for forced sterilization and abortions of 'brown' and 'yellow' people? And where do I take the Platonic position? The Platonic position of an 'enlightend' oligarchy is mentioned in the writings of Bertrand Russel that I included because you brought up Fabian Socialism (and the Webbs). I figured that a bit of context would have been appreciated, instead you seem to have read that I want evolutionary elites to impose on the weaker masses.
Wether you like it or not, forces are there...even in propagating your message of non-aggression you have to understand these forces or you will accomplish nothing.
If you subscribe to non-aggression, from where does your verbal aggression towards me come? Because in no way have I ever stipulated that I am in favor for racial genocide or Pol Pot-like collectivist killing field practices. If I didn't have a rational head on my shoulders I would have taken great offence in you trying to put me in the same category as them (or your ex-motorcycle-'buddies')
The only thing I did put out was that the 100% condemnation of any physical force (not the same 'force' I mentioned earlier which is way more broad) runs into grey areas...whichever way you look at it. As most 'principles' often do if you run them to flagpole.
I would advise you to reread my text and tell me where I have advocated this so-called eugenicist racial genocidal elitist agenda as you seem to think I have.
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
Charlie, if you are going to make claims about what someone believes, it would be very helpful if you could provide quotes to back those claims up. I might have missed it, but I don't see farbot advocating forced sterilizations.
There are a wide spectrum of options between anarchism and despotic communism. Please don't over-simplify.
I took your advice and re-read your posts in this thread.
I'm sorry for asserting that you support collectivism. I did not fully comprehend your posts because I really only scanned them and digested certain paragraphs. That was rude and unfair to you. Please accept my apology.
Upon actual reading, you make some really good points about the extremities of both sides of the eugenics, AWG, Peak Oil, and Corporate Socialism debates.
I have to be at the locked down G.H.W. Bush Intercontinental airport in a couple of hours. That always makes me a bit anxious and hyper-anti-Big Brother.
It takes a great man to boldly follow his own convictions against the flow of popular opinion, but an even greater man that can realize when he has been wrong or hasty. Apology heartily accepted. Good luck at the GHW bush airport. (That's in Texas I presume?)
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
An interesting talk by writer Edwin Black about oil/fossil fuels/energy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajjh3...layer_embedded
Thought it would go well with the peak oil/fossil fuel theme that was discussed in this conversation (alas... no eugenics mentioned....so Mick, if this is to offbeat for you and you like more clean postings, give me a notification on it, and i'll refrain from posting these things in future. Interesting video, nonetheless)
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
Thanks. Yes, it's an ugly one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...nental_Airport
I was there again today. Blyech.
Gaaaaahhhh. Equating the theory of evolution with social Darwinism really pisses me off.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks