Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Connect the dots

imagining DC without public transit

Tea Party attacks urban planning

methane clathrates bubbling

Added: Possible reassurance on the methane front: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arctic-seas-apocalypse-not/

Still, I wrote my GOP Senator Scott "I oppose cap and trade because jobs" Brown asking how many risks conservatives feel like taking with the environment. Odd that gay marriage is a major social threat, but Russian roulette with the atmosphere is hunky dory.

See the comment count unavailable DW comments at http://mindstalk.dreamwidth.org/302538.html#comments


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 15th, 2011 06:00 pm (UTC)
Oh, dear, you really take anthropogenic global warming seriously?
Dec. 15th, 2011 06:31 pm (UTC)
Oh dear, you really don't?
Dec. 15th, 2011 07:16 pm (UTC)
I take it that when eugenics was the be-afraid-be-very-afraid pseudo-scientific fad du jour, you would have taken it for science?
Dec. 15th, 2011 07:24 pm (UTC)
Eugenics wasn't a "be afraid" fad, it was a not quite universal enthusiasm for the improvement of the human species. And I can't say what I would have thought had I grown up then and been a massively different person such that talking about "I" is barely meaningful. Particularly since 'eugenics' ranges in meaning from the undeniable "controlling human reproduction would change human gene frequences" to completely unsupported ideas about racial superiority and sterilization for non-congenital.

Which has zero relevance for global warming, which is based on the facts of the chemistry of greenhouse gases, our spewing of them, and the warming of the planet.

Perhaps you think CO2 doesn't trap heat? Perhaps you think we aren't burning literal mountains of coal every year, far dwarfing volcanic production? Perhaps you think the world hasn't been warming rapidly and glaciers retreating?

Or you have some reason for disbelieving the near total consensus of climatologists?

You point to eugenics; I'd analogize deniers to Creationists and the people blowing smoke about the dangers of tobacco.

Edited at 2011-12-15 07:34 pm (UTC)
Dec. 15th, 2011 07:40 pm (UTC)
Tsk tsk. F in history, sir. The motivating power of Eugenics, and the reason why the papers kept running it, is that it was based on a horror story: "the fertility of the unfit". You will find books with this title in Project Gutenberg. Journalists could make the flesh of their readers creep with stories of the world being overran by Morlocks from the slums (H.G.Wells was a great believer in eugenics) because the good, educated, prosperous, orderly upper and middle classes weren't having enough children. As for the gene pool, not only did nobody know anything about genes when Eugenics was dreamed up (just as practically nothing is known today about the workings of climate), but it is now known that the Eugenic attempt to restrict breeding to a small area of genetic variation would indubitably have brought about more genetic disease and degeneration - a precedent to be thought about. IN the great days of Eugenics, practically everyone was in favour, and the Catholic Church was blackguarded for opposing it.
Dec. 15th, 2011 07:54 pm (UTC)
I'll grant the horror about being outbred by the poor and unfit and "inferior races"; that was definitely there, though I wasn't thinking of it. And is still around: Marching Morons, Idiocracy.

I'm pretty sure thoughts about improving the human race, just as domestic plants and animals had been improved through breeding, were also there, thus eugenics as a "progressive" policy. Really, it had something for everyone.

it is now known

Yes, though there's a difference between pseudo-science and incomplete science, and I'm sure the history of eugenics includes both.

did nobody know anything about genes

They knew controlled breeding worked in plants and animals, and much of eugenic thought occurred after the re-discovery of Mendel. It's not like you need fine molecular details for this.

practically nothing is known today about the workings of climate

Dec. 17th, 2011 02:07 am (UTC)
I ... can only assume you're awkwardly trolling?
Dec. 17th, 2011 02:23 am (UTC)
I don't know him all that well, but I don't think fpb trolls. He just really is conservative; I know him from johncwright's LJ. Main things we have in common are support for universal health care (*European* conservatism) and geeky fiction interest.

Edited at 2011-12-17 02:24 am (UTC)
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )


Damien Sullivan

Latest Month

January 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner