Pianka : the final word
Francois Tremblay Permalink
6 comments
The wonderful libertarian blog Hit and Run has written the final word on the Pianka fiasco. Here is my general message : whacko right-wing IDers and whacko left-wing Greenies, kindly shut the fuck up and read this blog entry.
The conflict between Pianka and his persecutors, most of whom are ID supporters, has been (mis)cast as a war between science and reason on one side, and religious zealotry and superstition on the other. But as I have said before, I think it is in fact a conflict between two different brands of religious zealotry. Commenters at Kos and other left-of-center blogs have gleefully pointed out that the same religious conservatives who voice outrage at Pianka's vision of an agonizing death for 80 to 90% of humanity often embrace the idea of a God who will visit horrific destruction upon the world and punish the disobedient with eternal agony. They are correct, but they miss the point that the irony goes in the other direction, too: the radical environmentalists are as enamored of Armageddon as the more conventional religious extremists. The eco-doomsayers are driven at least as much by their fervent belief that humanity needs to be punished for its sins of greed and luxury as they are by scientifically based concerns.
(...)
The enviro-zealots and the religious zealots are united in their hatred of the human mind, of human freedom and pride; and both long to see humanity crushed under the weight of a superior power, be it God or Nature.
Amen.
Post a Comment
6 Comments:
Do you guys believe that:
A. Global warming exists?
B. Global warming is a threat?
Just curious. Thanks.
"Do you guys believe that:
A. Global warming exists?"
Yes.
"B. Global warming is a threat?"
Yes.
Of course, expecting a "no" answer to either is a nice straw man that left-wing whackos like you use to downplay the extent of their lies.
It's amazing to me that some people who I really respect (for example, Penn & Teller) seem to doubt the veracity of global warming. For example, on P&T's show about "Environmental Hysteria," they basically said the science was inconclusive about this topic. While I usually agree with them, I thought that was pretty absurd. The only debate of which I'm aware is the debate as to whether global warming will directly cause another ice age.
I'm really not that much of an environmentalist though. All my environmental positions relate in some way to other political issues about which I care more. For example, I support drilling in ANWR because it will help make us less reliant on Middle Eastern oil. If we are less reliant on Middle Eastern oil, we can take the isolationist military stance of which I'm so desirous.
I'm very much in favor of clean air and clean water restrictions, apart from that, I don't have much common ground with LCV. I don't care about preserving forests, or maintaining habitat, or fighting extinction. My own speciocentricity shines through in my environmental positions.
Don't diss Penn and Teller, dude. They are NEVER wrong. They weren't wrong about that global warming thing either.
What, exactly, IS the science on the subject?
I completely agree. Pianka and the peak-oil doom cult are just peddling a different brand of fire and brimstone.
They AND the religious fundamentalists are to be equally derided.
But global warming is real. We should address it out of rational self-interest. Also, even if GW turns out not to be human-caused, reducing human CO2 production would have enormous side-benefits.
<< Home