Santorum on Limbaugh: Climate Change Is a "Scheme" for "More Government"

By The Intersection | June 9, 2011 9:57 pm

by Jon Winsor

No surprise, but Rick Santorum appeared on Rush Limbaugh today and made an effort to scoop up Mitt’s lost support:

The argument is a familiar kind, which I’ll have more to say about in the coming days:

“To me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’”

“It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life…”

H/T: TPMDC

Comments (27)

  1. Eeesh. Unfortunately, some things are still true even if chaps like Limbaugh land somewhere in their vicinity. One of the most chilling things I’ve heard was a number of topline environmentalists, lead by James Lovelock, saying that it might be necessary to “temporarily suspend democracy”. When this is the sort of thing being said, you have to expect people to fight back and fight back hard and dirty.

    Nick Cohen made the point very well:

    Arguments about climate change, however, are not at all like arguments about abortion or creationism. Hard-headed people can see that their bills will rise and maybe their jobs go too. You must expect them to fight back hard.

  2. 1985

    1. Hugo Schmidt Says:
    June 10th, 2011 at 3:24 am

    One of the most chilling things I’ve heard was a number of topline environmentalists, lead by James Lovelock, saying that it might be necessary to “temporarily suspend democracy”.

    What do you prefer:

    1. Global civilizational collapse, probable reduction of humanity back to caveman existence (or worse) and possible extinction of the species
    2. Suspension of democracy and prevention of the above

    I don’t think anybody can seriously claim that democracy is more important than the future of the species. It is just that they haven’t really thought about it much.

    The sad truth that nobody likes to talk about it is that in the absence of actual education for the masses, democracy means that the ignorant and illiterate will rule because they are the majority. Hardly a desirable situation.

    That’s why the “topline environmentalists” talk about this from time to time. It’s not because of some totalitarian aspirations on their part, they just see the big picture and they realize there is no other way even if it means that unpleasant measures will have to be taken However, it is hardly the mainstream ones and hardly as often as they should.

  3. 1985,

    Well obviously I’d prefer #2 if I get to run the non-democratic state, because then I’d get to round up people like you and send them to the wall.

    Oh, I am sorry, did that sound like a threat? What the hell do you think your post sounds like?

    This is beyond Leninism; this is Khmer Rouge stuff. And it makes complete nonsense of any complaint about Fox or Limbaugh’s anti-science. Science is the language of reason, and reason accepts no compromise with force. It demands convincing by evidence and man’s free, unforced agreement. When you declare your intention, not to convince but to threaten and bully people into submission, then there is no obligation on the opposing party to try to be reasonable. There is no argument when the final argument is a gun. They have every right to fight back and fight back as nastily and as dirtily as they can.

    I simply cannot believe that I am seeing fascism defended here. I don’t have the words for it.

  4. Nullius in Verba

    #2,

    “I don’t think anybody can seriously claim that democracy is more important than the future of the species.”

    General John Stark and the state of New Hampshire did.

    Usually when we mention this phenomenon, we get accused of being paranoid. Yes, a certain number of Greens claim to believe the emergency is so severe and urgent as to justify authoritarian totalitarian measures to prevent it – and of course they are the only people who could possibly be put in charge.

    As one put it: “There should be one government, and our argument in chapter 8 would make this government authoritarian.” and later: “Government in the future will be based upon [...] a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.”

    Another says: “At this phase of history and this part of the globe, we madly hold on to democracy and parliamentarism, although we all are well able to see that they are some of the most irrational and hopeless experiments of mankind. In democracies, countries of the parliamentary system, the world destruction, the sum of ecocatastrophes is incomparably at their most advanced: these things walk hand in hand. The sole glimmer of hope lies in centralized government, in untiring control of citizens.”

    “Kopenhagen ist ein erster Schritt hin zu einer neuen Weltklimaordnung, nicht mehr, aber auch nicht weniger.”

    Einer neuen Weltklimaordnung! Now there’s a phrase with historical resonance!

    So amongst Greens we have several different groups. There are those who think the action needed is cheap and easy – change your lightbulbs, turn things off standby, and invest a bit in energy-efficient technology research and all will be well. There are those who realise that it will take a great effort at an immensely high cost, and seek to persuade people that it is necessary; to make this effort voluntarily. And there are those who know that people will not ever willingly pay the price demanded, and so must be given no choice. Live Green or Die.

    But no prince may govern without the consent of the governed – not even eco-dictators – so the process has to be gradual. You get people to buy in to the idea with the easy stuff, ask for a small voluntary action to save the planet, which they take because it is so easy, but then becomes part of their beliefs because they took action on it. You ban minor things that nobody likes or nobody cares much about – to get them used to the idea of you banning things, the idea that its for the good, to get into the habit of obedience. Would it work? I’ve no idea. But a few people have proposed it.

    “Democracy means that the ignorant and illiterate will rule” – a common saying of those who consider themselves neither, and who therefore think they should be put in charge instead. It’s for the common good, and not for any selfish ends! Indeed, we should all be grateful that we benefit from the fruits of their wisdom, and of course they need to jet around the world to conferences in exotic places at our expense, and to live in big houses, because it’s needed to do the job they’ve been given. Oh yes!

    Well, it’s a point of view.

  5. TTT

    Santorum: It’s really a beautifully concocted scheme

    Oh yes–a surefire win for the conspirators!

    Step 1: Describe a problem with uncertain effects that will manifest over an uncertain timeframe
    Step 2: Describe solutions that rely on making basic and long-cherished comforts, particularly automobile use, more inconvenient and more expensive
    Step 3: Spend FORTY YEARS talking about it
    Step 4: ??????
    Step 5: PROFIT!

    Santorum’s brain has been long since drowned in a frothy mixture. If we were only in this for money, we’d have found something a lot quicker and more guaranteed to win it.

    Usually when we mention this, we get accused of being paranoid

    If the tinfoil hat fits….

    Unless Mr. “1985″ here has a shred of political power–and nothing personal, 1985, but I’m pretty sure you don’t–using him and his ilk as grist for the WORLD GOVERNMENT mill is no more intellectually legitimate than some militia bomb-maker’s frenzy over black helicopters, FEMA, and the Elders of Zion. Hey, black helicopters and FEMA really exist, and the Elders of Zion are mentioned in literature going back like 200 years–they’re actually a whole lot more threatening than any of the players I’ve ever seen woven into the eco-WORLD-GOVERNMENT kabuki.

  6. TTT, there’s that paranoid style again. Nullius and I have given you some quotations coming from politically very well connected people, and it is easy to find more. Can you seriously take a look at these declarations and not see something sinister here? This could be straight from a neo-fascist platform.

    Try listening to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00sfwtc

    Now, since you understand about the bias of false balance, notice that seven of the people interviewed are in favor of suspending democracy, and only one is against. So, the British state’s channel is advocating fascism.

    This disgraceful and shameful movement has already claimed a great many lives, and it will go on to claim more, but all of that is nothing compared with the horror that they would unleash if they gained real power. Remember, the disaster of my fatherland started with six losers and one bigmouth in a beer cellar.

  7. Nullius in Verba

    Hugo, #6,

    TTT already know it. But he does everything he can to discredit the notion, trying to draw strained connections with discreditable views in a frenzy of ad hominem, and also to wind people up.

    Note how familiar he is with the black helicopter literature. Note how desperate and frenzied his all-capitals exaggeration gets if anybody puts the Deep Green viewpoint up on general view.

    His only counters to the published views of the Deep Greens is that their policies are a) stupid and b) unsuccessful. To the first, the answer is ‘we know’, and to the second ‘we’d like it to stay that way’.

    The Deep Greens are no danger so long as we can see them for what they are, and what they’re trying to do. They’re only a problem if you’re not allowed to talk about them, if their views remain hidden, if they’re allowed to sneak up on people, and deceive them. They should be talked about openly, and their policies discussed.

    Do many Light Greens privately think their logic is right, but shy away from the implications? Do they think they’re right, but that discussing it openly is counterproductive? Or do they think that they’re wrong? If they do, they ought to set out their reasons why – because it seems to be the logical extension of what Greens generally seem to believe.

    To all,

    It’s a point of the pro-AGW position I don’t understand, and – following my own advice that if you want to know, it’s better to ask your opponent than sit in circles inventing hypotheses – I’m asking.

    It’s obvious by now that international climate agreements are dead in the water, and that further national legislations are coming under heavy fire politically. Its unpopular, and widely disbelieved. So if you believe this is really a planetary emergency, and if you accept that people are never going to take action willingly, then some degree of totalitarian authoritarianism seems to be your only option. Why is that wrong?

    Are you hanging on to faith that people can be persuaded?
    Do you think that people secretly do believe?
    Do you think it can be done without the need for people’s cooperation? By some new technology, say?
    Would you rather we faced such a disaster than that we use such illiberal methods?
    Is it that you don’t really believe it is really a planetary emergency; that middle America won’t become an abandoned, dune-covered desert by 2020, that New York won’t actually be submerged beneath the sea by 2030, that we won’t all be eaten by cannibals by 2040?

    Or are you simply trying not to think about it, and keep on hopelessly, with no real expectation that any of it will work?

    Hypothetically, if you ever became convinced that political efforts within the democratic framework would never work – what would you advocate?

  8. vel

    so, is democracy for you and your comfortable first world life more important than the lives of other humans who don’t have such luxuries?

  9. Incredulous

    Ok, now for the fun part. Where are we going to find these elite saviors? Who gets to choose them? If we are doing such a bad job choosing out leaders now, what makes you think we will magically be able to choose better ones and give them even *more* power?

    How many boogie men from “Big Oil” to “Big Pharma” and “Heartless Conservatives” are you going to bring out? Last time they picked out a scapegoat and created a new “Elite” ruling class it didn’t work out too well. You do remember that whole thing that happened at the beginning of the 1940′s don’t you? They were just trying to make things better.

  10. Nullius in Verba

    #8,

    “so, is democracy for you and your comfortable first world life more important than the lives of other humans who don’t have such luxuries?”

    Liberty for everyone is more important. I make no distinction between liberty in the first world and third world.

    But a comfortable first world life for everyone – especially the poor of the world – is my primary motivation for wanting global economic development to continue full speed, and not be crippled under Green taxes and restrictions. That desire for a comfortable first world life is precisely what the Deep Greens think is leading us to our doom, is what they are trying to prevent with their restrictions. Cheap energy is what allows the poor to live now, and what will make the poor rich in the future, as it has done for us.

    One of the main things the Deep Greens say is that the world is overpopulated, that the population will have to be reduced considerably to be “sustainable”. Is their concept of the pristine unspoilt Environment more important than the lives of those billions?

    So given that those poor people are going to want to be allowed to have children, to develop economically, to acquire those comfortable first world lives, and you believe this is going to lead to disaster, isn’t an authoritarian solution to trap all mankind in poverty and deprivation a necessity? If you disagree with them, where and why do you do so?

  11. 1985

    @ Hugo Schmidt and Nullius in Verba:

    This is precisely the kind of knee-jerk reaction that one sees from the deeply religious when you tell them that there is no God and what they have believed in all their life is nonsense. And I am quite sure the same underlying psychological mechanisms are involved.

    The goal of social systems is to provide good life for the people. If they are failing to do that, then they can and absolutely should be a subject of change, although that almost never happens in the kind of cool-headed way it should. All the evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that free-market democracy is rapidly leading us to an absolute disaster of global proportions, one that can potentially (and not at all unlikely) lead to the extinction of humans and most of life on the planet in the process. In that kind of situation, it is not just justifiable, but mandatory to reexamine the social structure.

    The reason you fail to see it is that you have been brainwashed from the moment of your birth in believing that democracy is sacred and the only way to run a society, and you have never developed your critical thinking skills quite enough to be able to question that assumption. Sure, democracy is a very nice thing, but it requires a certain level of human development for it to work, which is currently present pretty much nowhere on the planet. The way “democracy” has developed all over the Third world should be a sufficient demonstration of that simple fact. But it really isn’t that much different in the West, it is just that the collapse hasn’t unfolded yet.

    If you are going to let the majority do the decision-making (not that it is really doing it, but while the people elected in power do a lot of things contrary to desires of the population, they also have to pander to the mass sufficiently much to get elected; and they are often only marginally more knowledgeable in areas that actually matter than the average person on the street), you need the majority to be well-informed and capable of taking rational decisions. That much should be obvious to everyone. Given that billions all over the world are completely illiterate, and while the rest may be able to read they with very few exceptions totally lack the necessary knowledge to understand the very complex world we live in, it directly follows that democracy isn’t going to get us out of this mess, especially given that the measures that need to be taken run directly against core identity-forming beliefs held my the majority of people and against basic biological instincts. You can not be serious telling me that a population a quarter of which thinks the Sun orbits the Earth and half of which thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old is fit to take any decisions.

    In the same time it is absolutely correct that you can’t force people into living within their ecological means if they don’t understand the need to do so. But right now they don’t and they can’t because most of them don’t even understand the meaning of the word ecology if they have heard of it to begin with. That’s where the “temporary suspension of democracy” comes from – sufficient top-down pressure to get the changes moving combined with massive educational campaign and extremely heavy investment in education on all levels and for every single human being after that.

    To put your paranoid fears to rest, there is no chance of such a thing happening, neither is anyone seriously planning it; the environmentalists themselves don’t really understand it except for wise but unfortunately very fringe of the mainstream people like Lovelock who have nothing to lose and aren’t afraid to say it as it is. You can be pretty sure that anyone who talks of “sustainable development”, “”green growth”, “green jobs” and other stuff of that sort has absolutely no clue of the real situation (you can’t talk of growth of any kind given that growth is the root cause of all our problems). Most environmentalists talk about that sort of stuff.

  12. 1985

    10. Nullius in Verba Says:
    June 10th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
    #8,
    “so, is democracy for you and your comfortable first world life more important than the lives of other humans who don’t have such luxuries?”
    Liberty for everyone is more important. I make no distinction between liberty in the first world and third world.

    Liberty means absolutely nothing if you are starving to death. There are numerous example in history of people voluntarily surrendering their freedom in exchange for being fed and clothed. I am sure all those people in Africa who can’t even get their 1500 calories a day would readily volunteer to live under the kind of Soviet-style rule that right-winger so love to demonize as long as they get the same standard of living that people in the Soviet Union had. You will see a lot more of that in the not so distant future.

    But a comfortable first world life for everyone – especially the poor of the world – is my primary motivation for wanting global economic development to continue full speed, and not be crippled under Green taxes and restrictions. That desire for a comfortable first world life is precisely what the Deep Greens think is leading us to our doom, is what they are trying to prevent with their restrictions. Cheap energy is what allows the poor to live now, and what will make the poor rich in the future, as it has done for us.

    What happens when that cheap energy runs out? Or in addition to a global warming denialst, you are also a Peak Oil denialist (off-topic but it has always amazed me how tight the correlation between the two is, even though while you may have some legitimate reasons to argue that the former isn’t exactly certain, to argue against the latter is equivalent to arguing for a flat Earth).

    Yes, first-world lifestyle for everyone is what we should be aiming for. Problem is that there are several times more people living such a lifestyle right now than the planet can support, not to mention the other 6+ billions.

    One of the main things the Deep Greens say is that the world is overpopulated, that the population will have to be reduced considerably to be “sustainable”. Is their concept of the pristine unspoilt Environment more important than the lives of those billions?

    Sorry to be rude but this is an absolutely moronic statement.

    Is not about the pristine unspoilt environment, it is about an environment that can support human life. Why is it so hard to understand?

    It is very unfortunate that the environmental movement has made such an enormous blunder spending so much time talking about the preservation of signature species and habitats and never really framing this as an issue of human survival, which is what it really is. My guess is that the primary reason is mere failure to understand it themselves, but there is probably a lot of fear of sounding extremist too. Still, the fact is that it leads to statements like the above, and this doesn’t help at all.

    So given that those poor people are going to want to be allowed to have children, to develop economically, to acquire those comfortable first world lives, and you believe this is going to lead to disaster, isn’t an authoritarian solution to trap all mankind in poverty and deprivation a necessity? If you disagree with them, where and why do you do so?

    1. It is not just the poor that will have to stop having children, it is everyone.
    2. It absolutely doesn’t matter what people want if what they want is physically impossible. Santa Claus doesn’t exist, it’s time to grow up and face reality.

  13. Incredulous

    For many years, there has been an absolutely staggering amount of aid and effort spent on education to bring these “third world” people into the modern world. It has been sucked up by their “elite” who have become fabulously wealthy and do everything they can to maintain their supremacy. They never have enough. Apparently, people do not notice know about how the elite treat the population once they get in power. The billions of dollars we send by buying oil into Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Libya, and the rest, is squandered on mansions, jets, yachts, and the like by their “elite.” The aid going to Haiti, Somalia, and everywhere else you can name, gets taken as well. The reason these people are in a “third world” state is the fact that they have been screwed and kept in poverty by their own people. How can you possibly be so naive to think that we should give that type of totalitarian power to someone just because *you* think they are the best choice.

    I am not going to discuss with silly buzz words like “Peak Oil” and such. We have limited resources of all kinds. Who do you propose gets to control them? What are you going to do? Just go in and take over everything by force? You claim that there are too many people living now to to be supported. What do you suggest? Should we start throwing people out of the lifeboat and only the strong survive? Who gets to choose the ones we let live? Who gets to choose who can have children and who cannot? What do you propose doing to the people that don’t follow your orders?

    Did you sleep through all those history classes?

  14. Nullius in Verba

    1985,

    Thanks. That was very helpful.

  15. 1985

    13. Incredulous Says:
    June 10th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
    For many years, there has been an absolutely staggering amount of aid and effort spent on education to bring these “third world” people into the modern world. It has been sucked up by their “elite” who have become fabulously wealthy and do everything they can to maintain their supremacy. They never have enough. Apparently, people do not notice know about how the elite treat the population once they get in power. The billions of dollars we send by buying oil into Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Libya, and the rest, is squandered on mansions, jets, yachts, and the like by their “elite.” The aid going to Haiti, Somalia, and everywhere else you can name, gets taken as well. The reason these people are in a “third world” state is the fact that they have been screwed and kept in poverty by their own people. How can you possibly be so naive to think that we should give that type of totalitarian power to someone just because *you* think they are the best choice.

    Those in power which you call “elite” are typically just as ignorant and clueless as the rest of the population. For most purposes, you can treat them as the same group – they have very little to absolutely no understanding of the interaction between humans and the environment. Wealth and power are not the dividing characteristics here, it’s knowledge and understanding.

    The “suspension of democracy” thing is not about the “elite” you are thinking of taking even more power, it is about doing the unpleasant things that have to be done which the population is against because it is too ignorant to understand their necessity and which that elite mostly doesn’t understand either and is also against.

    I am not going to discuss with silly buzz words like “Peak Oil” and such. We have limited resources of all kinds. Who do you propose gets to control them? What are you going to do? Just go in and take over everything by force? You claim that there are too many people living now to to be supported. What do you suggest? Should we start throwing people out of the lifeboat and only the strong survive? Who gets to choose the ones we let live? Who gets to choose who can have children and who cannot? What do you propose doing to the people that don’t follow your orders?

    No need to. Stop having children for a while and the population will decrease naturally, stop the unnecessary consumption of which a lot can be cut without any real impact on people’s standard of living and redirect it to those who need to increase their consumption, have actual education for everyone and you don’t have to throw anyone out of the lifeboat. If we don’t do those things, then we will indeed be throwing people out of the lifeboat. There is a long list of whole countries but also cities in the US that will be left to take care of themselves without the resources necessary to support their population when the current supply lines break down and where people will be effectively thrown out of the lifeboat.

    It is absolutely amazing how when one brings up these issues people’s knee-jerk reaction is to understand it as if you want to do precisely the things you want to avoid and which are becoming more and more unavoidable the more we don’t do anything about them.

  16. Nullius in Verba

    #15,

    If the clueless elite shouldn’t rule, and the illiterate people shouldn’t rule, who should? Can you think of any names? Or a list of suitable qualifications for office?

  17. 1985

    A very long time ago decision making in society should have been taken out of the hands of politicians and given to groups of experts.

    I can not understand how any sane person would think that people whose education is usually limited to economics, business and law, artificial fields that have very little to do with (or are total disconnect from) the real world (and who often didn’t particularly excelled at those either) are qualified to make decisions that require technical expertise that they don’t have.

    Climate change is a perfect example of this self-destructive behavior – the “politically feasible” thing is to do nothing, the experts be damned…

  18. Nullius in Verba

    #17,

    Excellent! Thank you.
    I presume “Committees of experts in subjects other than economics, business, and law” would be a fair summary.

    And now, how about those few who stubbornly fight the new system in the face of the planetary emergency? What should be done to prevent them blocking progress?

    You said earlier that many people “would readily volunteer to live under the kind of Soviet-style rule that right-winger so love to demonize as long as they get the same standard of living that people in the Soviet Union had.” (I presume you mean the early Holodomor years reported on so favourably by the likes of Walter Duranty.) Would you say that the Soviet approach to those who resisted the essential redistribution of resources also has some justification?

    Not that there’s any chance of it happening – because of those demonic right-wingers – but in an ideal world where all the necessary action was being taken, would it be a price worth paying?

  19. Incredulous

    As far as the elite in these places being ignorant and clueless, many of them attended university here in the U.S. and in Europe. Many of the Saudi royal family went to college at the same university I attended and have engineering degrees. Foolish and selfish? Yes. Ignorant and clueless? No. Pol Pot was an ex-teacher. Lenin was a lawyer. Mussolini studied to be a teacher, I don’t know that he ever taught. Fidel Castro was a lawyer. The list goes on. Nobody would ever accuse these people of being stupid. Being educated does not guarantee that people make good leaders. They were all educated and “knew what what was best” for the people, too. They were not too big on democracy either. Do you just prefer that we would be wiped out by the warfare that your “suspension of democracy” would precipitate rather than merely being doomed by our lifestyle?

    I see a lot of subjective bias in “stop the unnecessary consumption”. Who gets to decide what is necessary? Who gets to designate the people who make the decisions? What do you propose to do to the people that don’t behave as you wish?

    It is much more likely that we will be wiped out by warfare and disease rather than starvation, running out of energy, or global warming.

  20. I agree with you generally, Nullius, but I should say that it isn’t – generally speaking – a good thing to impute motives to people. I’ve just had to put up with it from John over on the other thread and by 1985 here and it’s not pleasant.

    That said, I am completely in agreement with you about this wannabe gauleiter here. 1985, let me make this crystal clear: the reason that I say what I say is because I know history enough to mean it when I say “Never Again” – and if I ever suspect that you or any of your ilk are getting close to succeeding, you little heirs of Heidegger will learn what the wrath of a true son of the Fatherland looks like.

    Incidentally, this rather underlines a point I made elsewhere about the nature and importance of the confrontational and dialectic.

    Oh, and Nullius? Major props for getting this fascist pest to reveal his true colors. This is stuff right out of Archeofuturism

  21. 1985

    I hope you realize that all you have done above is calling me “fascist pest” and communist and the likes (in the same time (!!!), and this is not the first time I am observing this happening; apparently inflexible true-believer minds have to fit everything in the pre-existing categories they know but when they are unable to quite comprehend something, the classification algorithm breaks down spectacularly), and parroting a lot of completely irrelevant gibberish that has nothing to do with the issue, without ever providing a single valid rational argument for why what I say is not true.

    I somewhat doubt that anything can get you out of your cocoon of self-congratulatory ignorance about the world around you, after all it is precisely that kind of ignorance that I am talking about above and that has forced me to make those conclusions. And that’s tough to swallow for the vast majority of people. But it has to be pointed out.

    Again, rest assured, absolutely nothing is going to ever be done and you will live to happily see how we reap the consequences. What I said above is basically a futile exercise in trying to figure out what the most likely to succeed way to get us out of the mess would be by taking into account the factors that got us into it in the first place and how they can be countered. Just as nobody owes us the existence of imaginary beings in the sky that care about us and nobody owes us meaning in life, nobody also owes the existence of pleasant solutions to our sustainability crisis and nobody owes us the existence of reasons for it that do not involve deep flaws in our psychology, very poor reasoning abilities and low individual intellectual development.

  22. Incredulous

    ” The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.”

    No, the classification system has not broken down. This is the first paragraph of Ted Kaczynski’s Manefesto.

  23. Nullius in Verba

    #20,

    I usually only do the motive stuff when provoked – and I’m never very serious about it even then. TTT and I have had many previous conversations about it.

    Actually, I thought it was a remarkable bit of luck to get a Deep Green turn up like that – I could have argued for hours trying to make the case that such people exist. 1985′s views are quite typical of the breed, and I think it’s far better to have one explain their views for themselves than have me give my external (and possibly biased) version of them. Free speech allows all views to be expressed and debated, so that we have the clearest possible view of the options and their consequences. It’s a lot more important that everyone know what their views are, than that we tell them how much we don’t agree. (They already know that, anyway.)

    Given that he’s just provided almost as perfect a demonstration as we could ask for, why get annoyed about it?

    #21,

    I’m still interested in your answers for #18. (You don’t have to take my suggestion – you can offer one of your own.) Or if you want to give me your rational reasons for thinking it’s all true, I might have a go at giving you mine why I think it’s not.

  24. Nullius, I wasn’t annoyed, or at least, not at you. I was irritated by John deciding to ascribe motives to me when he didn’t know me at all, and it occurred to me that if I got ticked about this, others might. If you and TTT have been around the ring before, sorry, I didn’t know.

    As I said, we are entirely in agreement with this fascist nitwit. Incidentally, 1985 do you have the faintest idea what I mean when I call you the heir to Heidegger? Or what Archaeofuturism is? Of course not. You are clearly laboring under the delusion that Communism and Fascism are two absolute opposites, rather than two variants of the same thing.

  25. 1985

    do you have the faintest idea what I mean when I call you the heir to Heidegger? Or what Archaeofuturism is?

    I am perfectly aware. But both of those things are completely irrelevant to the discussion which is why I ignored them. You brought them up because you are totally unable to understand what I am telling you. Not my fault

    You are clearly laboring under the delusion that Communism and Fascism are two absolute opposites, rather than two variants of the same thing.

    Not at all. That in practice totalitarian states were built under both ideologies does not mean that the philosophies are the same. It’s actually very strange that someone would recite names and terms like the ones above and in the same time make such a statement.

    But this is once again completely irrelevant, all you are doing is trying to apply the tried and true tactics of applying labels that carry a lot of negative connotations to someone’s views that you don’t like in the hope that the labels will somehow invalidate those views. It doesn’t matter whether the labels apply or whether the ideas and conclusions you attack are valid for not. As I already mentioned, what I have been saying so far has absolutely nothing to do with communism, fascism or any other -ism, and is by no means motivated by any of them. But you lack the necessary knowledge and reasoning abilities to comprehend it so you resort to such methods to try to make it go away.

    Which is very easily spotted by anyone with just a little such abilities of his own, but unfortunately such people are rare so I am sure there are many reading this now who think you have scored another incredibly meaningful win against the “deep green” pests (for the record, I am not even “green”, but again, we have to fit things in the standard categories we know well and have standard arguments against)

  26. Well, let’s settle this then, shall we? You believe in a small gang taking charge for the good of the whole (Marxist-Leninism), you want to do so to retard industrial expansion and reverse it (the Khmer Rouge), and you do so under a blood-and-soil ideology (Heidegger). An apocalyptic trio; you should be so proud.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »