Article

Indignation Drives the Doomer Religion

Here’s another in my series debunking the doomers of ‘peak oil.’ This particular comment, posted over at Peak Oil Debunked post #299, was in response to an anonymous poster named jev.

Like others, jev is actually most concerned about global inequality, not survival. So he invents scenarios where wealthy consumers will be punished through calamities and shortages.

Recently, commenter David Mathews, who claims to believe in god(!) made it clear on this blog that he considers humans to be the enemy of nature. Obviously, as I pointed out, humans are a product and part of nature. Also blatantly obvious: If god is the creator, humans are part of creation, and therefore part of ‘god’s plan.’ But regardless of this clear contradiction, Matthews still relishes the idea of human extinction, where fossilized humans relinquish the earth to animals. This is his idea of recompense for "All the plants and animals [having been] killed on behalf of humankind’s greed for inanimate possessions." I’ll be summarizing and condensing those comments into a future post. Let’s just say, I’m continually amazed at the depths of intellectual depravity I see expressed by those who espouse belief in god and claim to have a social conscience.

My post:

jev, like most if not all doomers, you’ve given up any hope that things can get better in the world. I’ve spent way too much time already arguing with your type. Why don’t you go hang out over at Deconsumption, LATOC, Kunstlerfuck, or other places where they serve the die-anide laced kool-aid?

You’re rather happy about there being no famine, no pestilence on your doorstep. Good for you: you were born in the right place at the right time, like me. You don’t know how lucky you are.

Yeah right. It’s hardly luck. We are benefiting from the actions of our ancestors who were smart enough to actually develop this world and deal with things like starvation, infant mortality, and preventable disease.

Your tired attacks on all manner of professionals who are openly and honestly trying to debate and formulate a plan of action of sorts

What plan of action? Wealth redistribution by force?? Forced relinquishment of northern hemisphere living standards? You whine and wail about the inequality. Grow the fuck up. Would you rather the ENTIRE world be starving instead of a billion people? In essence, that’s another BIG part of the doomer religion–righteous indignation over human injustice: "Waaa. We haven’t been fair to the impoverished masses, so we should all suffer–especially those who’ve benefited the most."

It’s simply Marxist rhetoric about class struggle dressed up in new clothes.

Preparing to implement death by decree due to failure of human imagination is nothing if not a finger in the eye of every creative and productive individual who’s ever lived.

[NOTE: the post discussed Richard Heinberg's intellectual support of William Stanton's call for forcible population reduction, documented here.]

jev, what you are really saying is equal opportunity death is better than living under inequality. Careful, you live in a rich country–it may be your own demise you’re planning.

working at ways to lift up not just urban dandies like yourself, but a larger, broader part of the global community.

Brilliant. How do you expect to lift them up without sustainable and cheap energy? And if so, doesn’t that also mean that the rest of the world isn’t doomed?? Technology must be allowed to do its work. This can only happen without destroying the environment, by making capitalism sustainable through market pricing of externalities.

Whether governments decide to mandate this (such as enacting a widespread carbon tax), and how soon, will have a great deal to do with the depth and severity of any economic crisis or climate backlash we experience. But people will never stop eating, fucking, making war, or consuming.

And here’s comes the fire and brimstone as a result. Doomers always hang themselves with their own rhetoric:

May chaos punish you to the extent that you did nothing to prevent it.

That sounds to me suspiciously like a curse or a prayer. All hail the church of doom….

What will happen to the world will happen because of millions of tiny individual decisions. jev, people want to live, and they want to prosper–and they’re very good at it: put that in your crystal ball.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments (11 comments)

adron / May 3rd, 2006, 11:05 am / #1

Wow, it’s hard to fathom people still fighting for this. But a simple study of their psychology makes it very simple. They want simple answers to provide them with reasons and cannot handle the world otherwise. In this they become militant.

I would simply ask, name one atheist who started a war, or destroyed a billion people? The closest you can get to a supposed atheist is a Communist, and a communist != an atheist. Ahteism provides simply a stated fact that said person does not follow adherence or believe that there is a God.

It’s really simple, I’m not sure why someone can’t accept that and instead must make it seem it such an evil.

But I digress, the book End of Faith is definately good. Hopefully we are on the footsteps of ridding ourselves of such an unthinking mindset as monotheism (and polytheism before it) provides for humanity.

I dread to think where we would be today if the millions of scientists, developers, thinkers, and other humans where all religious. Our progress would dwindle so quickly we could draw comparisons to the Dark Ages again.

I wouldn’t find this very entertaining or useful for us at all. :(
…then to comment on the oil doomers. They’re being horribly idiotic. Humanity will sit, and a few will read their books and their history and laugh at this movement. They’ll drink their tea in the future as they ride about on whatever technologically advanced vehicle that has come to be thru human invention and smirk at the alarmist mentality of the oil doomers.

btw - kick ass blog, it’s calming to know there is at least a few other people (u being one) that use their gray matter! :)
Keep it going!

David Mathews / May 3rd, 2006, 5:22 pm / #2

Hello,

I see another futile attempt to pray to the technology god to save humankind from the consequences of our own foolish & destructive behaviors.

What’s this you say?

“Technology must be allowed to do its work. This can only happen without destroying the environment, by making capitalism sustainable through market pricing of externalities.”

It’s a little late for technology to do its work without destroying the environment. Haven’t you noticed? Or do you live in an area which is naturally covered in asphalt?

Do you really believe that technology can save humankind? If so, maybe technology ought to save the people of Haiti. Are you aware of the problems occurring there? If not, that might explain your optimism.

Will technology save the people of Iraq? The Iraqis are suffering because of too much technology. F-16s flying overhead, depleted uranium munitions covering the ground, IEDs blowing up here and there, and the curse of oil.

Do you suppose that the technology god is going to save humankind from … extinction? Please. You atheists have a lot more faith in technology than I have faith in God.

You are a religious people. Too bad that your religion leads you to an irrational hope in technology functioning as humankind’s ultimate saviour and that this hope also leads you to a futile belief in the immortality of the human species.

Isn’t it unfortunate that billions of people are suffering in this world today, and that there is no prospect whatsoever for these people to rise out of poverty, and that it is absolutely impossible for these people to live like Americans?

David Mathews / May 3rd, 2006, 5:51 pm / #3

Let me add one thing: I am well aware of the fascist element in the Peak Oil movement. I read that William Stanton article in ASPO a long time ago. I am not in favor of any of his proposals, nor of Richard Heinberg’s flirtation with the same.

If you are opposed to the above ideas, there is no argument whatsoever between us. About that subject, at least, we are in complete agreement.

***

But your optimism in humanity, science and technology are erroneous.

Aaron Kinney / May 4th, 2006, 8:36 am / #4

David,

Your anti-technology claims are hollow.

Did you know, for example, that the ozone layer is in better shape today than it was when we first started monitoring it over 50 years ago?

Did you know it is technology that is responsible for effective waste management, and that societies with less “technology” are the dirtier ones?

Which country has more human waste in their streets: America or India? Which country has dirtier air in its population centers: America or India?

Is it technology or the rejection of it that led us to the discovery of catalytic converters, hydrogen fuel cells, and renewable power sources like wind farms and hydroelectric dams?

Is it technology or the rejection of it that leads us to a 100% effective vaccination for HPV, and drug cocktails that make HIV infections recede to undetectable levels?

Sorry chum, but the countries with the most technology are the countries with better health and cleaner environments.

Why is it that 1000 years ago the life expectancy of a human male was half of what it is today? Is that because technology is good, or bad?

A rejection of technology is a rejection of education itself. A rejection of technology is a rejection of epistemology and the application of knowledge to the environment around us. A rejection of technology is a rejection of science.

Shit, a rejection of technology is a rejection of YOUR OWN BODY, for you EVOLVED (or were created) with tools specific for the use of technology: a powerful conceptualizing mind for imagining technology applications, opposable thumbs to manipulate objects, and an audio/communication system capable of communuicating complicated ideas.

David, where do you think the world will end up if it rejects technology?

Spears for hunting? Nope, thats technology! Using a rock to break open a coconut? Nope, thats technology! Using a stick to cook your meat over a fire? No way, thats technology! In fact, fire itself is technology! You cant use that!

Why dont you explain exactly HOW the human race will benefit by rejecting the very tools it had evolved/was created with?

Why dont you explain exactly HOW humans will live longer and healthier without technology.

Do you even realize that when you attack technology, that you are attacking such basic things as the wheel, fire, hunting tools, and even written communication?

One last thing: Religions require technology to survive. From the Bible to the pictographs of ancient Gods in buried cities of milleniums past, all religions utilized technology for their survival and propogation.

David Mathews / May 4th, 2006, 3:05 pm / #5

Hello Aaron,

It would take too long & too much space to answer all those questions. I will only concentrate on the most important points.

“A rejection of technology is a rejection of education itself. A rejection of technology is a rejection of epistemology and the application of knowledge to the environment around us. A rejection of technology is a rejection of science.”

Yes, all of the above is true. These are acceptable sacrifices. If faced with the choice between preserving the Earth as a living, functioning planet or preserving all of the products of human intellectual activity, I would choose the Earth.

Humankind & human thought are not essential to the Universe. We will pass away, everything that humans have accomplished will fade away into anonymous oblivion, and the Earth will continue on very well without us.

“Shit, a rejection of technology is a rejection of YOUR OWN BODY, for you EVOLVED (or were created) with tools specific for the use of technology: a powerful conceptualizing mind for imagining technology applications, opposable thumbs to manipulate objects, and an audio/communication system capable of communuicating complicated ideas.”

Maybe all of these attributes of humankind appear important & impressive to you, but not so much to me. I have spent a lot of time observing humankind and all those things that humans do and have reached the conclusion that intelligence is wasted on the Homo sapiens.

Generally speaking, humans are proud of their ignorance and prone to violence, hate and bigotry. Giving such a creature intelligence and an ability to make tools is pretty much like throwing gasoline on a fire.

We are presenting living in the era in which humankind is enjoying an absurd level of prosperity and dominance on the Earth which is made possible only because we are depleting the Earth’s resources at a reckless pace. When the global fossil energy party is finished humans will have no choice except to live & die on an impoverished, depleted planet. They will discover that human intellect, science and technology are leading to a dead end.

“David, where do you think the world will end up if it rejects technology?”

I expect that Nature will begin recovering all those lands which humans have destroyed. Nature will repair the damage which humans have inflicted upon every corner of the globe. Ultimately, Nature will erase all memories of humankind’s existence from the surface of the Earth. That’s why I am in favor of technology coming to an end.

“Spears for hunting? Nope, thats technology! Using a rock to break open a coconut? Nope, thats technology! Using a stick to cook your meat over a fire? No way, thats technology! In fact, fire itself is technology! You cant use that!”

We can & should lose all of these technologies as well. I am very much in favor of humans resuming the most primitive sort of animalistic lifestyles. Humility would serve humankind better than any byproduct of human intellectual activity.

“Why dont you explain exactly HOW the human race will benefit by rejecting the very tools it had evolved/was created with?”

For one thing, humans would cease destroying the Earth at such a suicidal pace. Secondly, humans would lose all of the tools of human violence. Finally, humans would escape from the delusional unnatural world of our thoughts.

“Why dont you explain exactly HOW humans will live longer and healthier without technology.”

Humans would stop pouring so many poisons down their throats & exercise more within the context of a purely natural animalistic lifestyle. Humans would also cease attacking each other with the tools of violence and warfare, this alone will vastly improve humankind’s experience of life in the Universe.

“Do you even realize that when you attack technology, that you are attacking such basic things as the wheel, fire, hunting tools, and even written communication?”

Yes. I am in favor of humankind losing all of these. I do not believe that these are vital to the humankind or essential to the Universe.

“One last thing: Religions require technology to survive. From the Bible to the pictographs of ancient Gods in buried cities of milleniums past, all religions utilized technology for their survival and propogation.”

Yes. I am not worried about the loss of religion which would result from the end of technology.

God doesn’t need religion. God could care less whether humans acknowledge His existence or not.

The animals are not religious and yet they are a great deal closer to God than the saints. Religion only became necessary when humans became so divorced from nature that they needed to engage the intellect in order to realize that there is more to the Universe than what we see and what we imagine.

God doesn’t need religion. God doesn’t need humankind’s worship. God doesn’t need human faith.

God has existed eternally, the Universe has existed for fifteen billion years, and humans are a small & inconsequential creature located on a small & inconsequential planet which happens to orbit a mediocre star located in a totally unremarkable galaxy. Which is to say: Humans are nothing, even less than nothing, when compared to the Universe & to God.

If faced with the choice of preserving humankind’s religious nature or having a living, functioning planet, I’d choose the living planet over religion.

The problem with the Earth is humankind. Science, technology and religion are tainted only because humankind is flawed. Since there is no hope whatsoever of humans solving humankind’s flawed nature it is evident that Nature itself will have to purge this violent, destructive creature from the Universe.

God is inclined to allow Nature to do its own work. Soon enough, everyone will realize that Nature can overwhelm and defeat every intention of humankind.

BlackSun / May 5th, 2006, 11:48 am / #6

“I have spent a lot of time observing humankind and all those things that humans do and have reached the conclusion that intelligence is wasted on the Homo sapiens.”

David, every time you post, you dig yourself in deeper. Your utter hatred of humanity ensures that you can never have a balanced perspective.

Don’t pretend to speak for 6.5 billion humans. What will or will not happen to human civilization will be decided in ways you can’t possibly foresee or even understand. Not everyone shares your goals or your pessimism. All your righteous rhetoric about returning earth to ‘nature’ is just wild speculation. Can you accept even the slightest possibility that you’re wrong?

If you are so concerned about the destruction of the world through technology, why do you even use a computer or take pictures?

“I am very much in favor of humans resuming the most primitive sort of animalistic lifestyles.”

Why not just go live with the animals NOW if it’s such a good idea?

You are a misanthrope, and 100% hypocritical. I’m going to have to ask you to stop posting here. You are not adding anything productive to the discussion.

“The problem with the Earth is humankind. Science, technology and religion are tainted only because humankind is flawed. Since there is no hope whatsoever of humans solving humankind’s flawed nature it is evident that Nature itself will have to purge this violent, destructive creature from the Universe. ”

You obviously don’t care about people at all, since you think we’re such miserable, destructive creatures. You’ve magnified the negatives out of all proportion, while ignoring the beauty, generosity and intelligence humans also express. In that sense, your personality is kind of similar to the “Q” character in Star Trek (without the powers). You’ve set yourself up as judge, jury, and (if you could) executioner of humanity. You can’t possibly believe in a god, you think you ARE god.

I hope for your own sake that you snap out of your anti-human enviro-spiritual-elitist fog.

David Mathews / May 5th, 2006, 7:19 pm / #7

Hello Blacksun,

“David, every time you post, you dig yourself in deeper. Your utter hatred of humanity ensures that you can never have a balanced perspective.”

I do not hate humankind. Certainly I hate what humans do, but I do not hate humankind.

Would you say that you are altogether satisfied with the manner in which humans have behaved in this Universe? I mean, a day doesn’t go by without some account of human violence throughout the world.

Would you like for humans to cease all acts of violence on the Earth?

“Don’t pretend to speak for 6.5 billion humans.”

I don’t speak for 6.5 billion humans, nor would I like to do so. I speak for my self.

“What will or will not happen to human civilization will be decided in ways you can’t possibly foresee or even understand.”

Of course. That’s why it is interesting to watch history unfold.

“Not everyone shares your goals or your pessimism.”

Of course.

“All your righteous rhetoric about returning earth to ‘nature’ is just wild speculation. Can you accept even the slightest possibility that you’re wrong?”

Of course. If your viewpoint is optimistic perhaps you could convince me that my opinions are wrong. That’s the purpose of our argument, if it has any purpose at all.

“If you are so concerned about the destruction of the world through technology, why do you even use a computer or take pictures?”

It’s impossible to live in this modern world without tools and technology. But in the future a day will come in which humans have no choice except to live without these tools and technologies. We won’t live to see that day but it is coming nontheless.

“Why not just go live with the animals NOW if it’s such a good idea?”

Humans have utterly destroyed the animals’ habitat and made this sort of lifestyle impossible for both them & us.

“You are a misanthrope, and 100% hypocritical. I’m going to have to ask you to stop posting here. You are not adding anything productive to the discussion.”

I am a misanthrope? I am evaluating human behavior objectively and critically. If you want to glorify and worship humankind, that is your own choice. But I certainly will not praise humans for what they have done & continue to do on the Earth.

“You obviously don’t care about people at all, since you think we’re such miserable, destructive creatures.”

If I didn’t care about people I would never notice that they were miserable, destructive creatures. The consequences of these behaviors have brought immense & unrelenting suffering to billions of people in the world today. Have you not noticed that these people exist?

“You’ve magnified the negatives out of all proportion, while ignoring the beauty, generosity and intelligence humans also express.”

I am seeking to evaluate humankind objectively & unsentimentally. As an atheist you are perhaps too sentimental in your evaluation of humankind because your philosophy pretty much declares humans the greatest animal in the Universe.

“In that sense, your personality is kind of similar to the “Q” character in Star Trek (without the powers). You’ve set yourself up as judge, jury, and (if you could) executioner of humanity. You can’t possibly believe in a god, you think you ARE god.”

Please. You are speaking in a silly manner.

Do you believe that humankind is above judgment & condemnation?

Do you really believe that human destructive behavior has no consequences?

Do you really believe that humankind’s ability to survive exceeds that of any other animal?

I suspect that within your atheism you have drawn an irrational distiction between humans and the animals. Your approach to this issue differs drastically from the views expressed by the atheistic evolutionists and philosophers.

Perhaps you are not in reality an atheist. You haven’t altogether abandoned your religious upbringing. You have much faith & hope, too much for any intellectually honest atheist.

“I hope for your own sake that you snap out of your anti-human enviro-spiritual-elitist fog.”

If you would like, you can pray for me. God hears the prayers of atheists.

BlackSun / May 5th, 2006, 11:50 pm / #8

I’m not going to pray for you, David, but maybe we are getting somewhere. Because now you say that it’s possible that humanity might not be doomed to extinction. Before you said:

“Since there is no hope whatsoever of humans solving humankind’s flawed nature it is evident that Nature itself will have to purge this violent, destructive creature from the Universe.”

Now you say “perhaps you could convince me that my opinions are wrong.” Also, now you say you do not hate humankind. But your distinction about hating what they do is moot. If you hate what humans do, then you hate humans. If you claim to love them, what do you love about them if not their behavior?

Also, now you say this destruction won’t happen in our lifetimes. That’s a lot different than most doomers. Are you changing your tune? After all, I agree we will eventually be destroyed, maybe by the next Ice Age or a meteor. That doesn’t make solving urgent problems such as climate change unimportant. Because we are at most decades away from terraforming and colonizing other moons and planets in this solar system. That right there could save humanity, even from a meteor strike.

“If I didn’t care about people I would never notice that they were miserable, destructive creatures.”

This is a self-contradictory statement. If people, acting in their natural manner, are destructive, and you hate the way they act, how can you pretend to care about them? Especially when you say they need to be cleansed from the earth. If that’s care, what would it be like if you didn’t care?

Violence seems to be the human trait you detest the most. What if I could show that the violence practiced by humans was simply the evolutionary extension of the violence practiced by animals, and that it was completely natural?

Could you love human beings for what they are? Or must you try to judge us for what can be proven to be completely natural behavior?

“Humans have utterly destroyed the animals’ habitat and made this sort of [primitive] lifestyle impossible for both them & us.”

I think you aren’t being honest here. People stopped living primitively because their lives were nasty, brutish, and short. No one would go back to that existence voluntarily. You’ll keep using your tools because they confer advantages on you and make your life better.

If you’re not willing to give up your technology right now–all of it–then you are part of the destruction you detest, and most definitely a hypocrite.

“I suspect that within your atheism you have drawn an irrational distiction between humans and the animals. Your approach to this issue differs drastically from the views expressed by the atheistic evolutionists and philosophers.”

That’s because I really don’t care what other atheists think. I care what can be observed empirically. Studying evolutionary biology, it can be clearly shown that the links between humans and animals are inextricable. We contain vestigial traits from every animal who has predated us in the evolutionary chain.

By the same token, animals contain nascent human traits. All the actions of humans you despise, such as deception, violence, killing, and overconsumption exist throughout the animal kingdom. I’m prepping a post with examples.

One of the main drivers for humans to develop higher reasoning function was for deception and advantage. As reasoning skills improved, deception-detection improved. And on and on in a spiral that has culminated in all the battles and competition that make up recorded history.

To understand history, you must take a gene’s point of view. It’s pretty clear you haven’t read Dawkins “The Selfish Gene.” That would be a good place to start.

If you are truly here to discuss, and not to simply repeat your point of view, I’m going to leave you with a question: What would it take to convince you that humanity is a part of nature? And that no matter how flawed, humanity has the same chance as the animals, the same chance life has always had?

David Mathews / May 6th, 2006, 12:48 pm / #9

Hello Blacksun,

“Also, now you say you do not hate humankind. But your distinction about hating what they do is moot. If you hate what humans do, then you hate humans.”

I love mosquitos, they are fascinating creatures, but I hate it when they bite me. Hence it is very possible to love a creature and yet disapprove of its behaviors. This is especially true in the case of humankind since our behaviors are not compelled by instinct but rather by conscious choice.

“If you claim to love them, what do you love about them if not their behavior?”

I love humankind in the same sense that I love the blue sky, the flowers, the water, and everything else in the Universe. This sort of love does not demand any particular affection for those evil behaviors of humankind.

“Also, now you say this destruction won’t happen in our lifetimes. That’s a lot different than most doomers. Are you changing your tune?”

I have never claimed that anything would occur within our lifetimes. All talk of the future — whether optimistic or pessimistic — is speculation.

I can say for certain is that in the future humankind will suffer, technology will fail, our species eventually will become extinct, and nature will erode away all the works of humankind from the surface of the Earth. As to when & how these things will happen I do not know.

“Because we are at most decades away from terraforming and colonizing other moons and planets in this solar system.”

You are an optimist. I doubt very much that these things will happen, but even if they do humans will inhabit these harsh environments tenuously at best. There is no hope of humankind prospering on Mars or the moons of Jupiter & Saturn.

“If people, acting in their natural manner, are destructive, and you hate the way they act, how can you pretend to care about them?”

Caring is one thing, approval another. I do not approve of human destructive behavior whether these are natural or not.

“Especially when you say they need to be cleansed from the earth. If that’s care, what would it be like if you didn’t care?”

I believe that human behavior over the last six to ten thousand years constitutes a form of global suicide. Nature has both the authority & power to cleanse a species from the Earth. Such acts might occur by bad luck such as natural catastrophe (asteroid vs. the Dinosaurs) or by bad choices (humankind vs. Nature).

I’d like for humans to change their behavior in order to avoid the most terrible consequences of our evil behaviors. Drawing attention to the potential for massive human suffering in the future might serve to wake people up from their own selfish, destructive decisions.

“Violence seems to be the human trait you detest the most. What if I could show that the violence practiced by humans was simply the evolutionary extension of the violence practiced by animals, and that it was completely natural?”

If humans were only as violent as the animals I would not complain. Human violence, unfortunately, is about a billion times worse than that of any other animal. Human violence has reached a scale of abhorrence as to remove all Divine constraints upon Nature’s ability to punish us.

If you would like to argue that human violence is natural, I would only ask: Are machine guns, bombs and nuclear missiles natural?

“Could you love human beings for what they are? Or must you try to judge us for what can be proven to be completely natural behavior?”

No, absolutely not. I cannot approve of human violence regardless of what excuse you might provide to justify it. I also could care less if some people consider their own violence natural. God gave humans an opportunity to transcend our nature but humans have chosen the opposite course.

“I think you aren’t being honest here. People stopped living primitively because their lives were nasty, brutish, and short. No one would go back to that existence voluntarily.”

Are you aware of the hundreds of millions of people in Africa & elsewhere who have no choice except to live the nasty, brutish and short life? The scale of human suffering on the Earth is immense. Shall we neglect these people? Are they irrelevant to the subject of our discussion?

“You’ll keep using your tools because they confer advantages on you and make your life better.

If you’re not willing to give up your technology right now–all of it–then you are part of the destruction you detest, and most definitely a hypocrite.”

Well, then, I am a hyocrite. No need to argue about such matters. I make no claims of perfection.

“Studying evolutionary biology, it can be clearly shown that the links between humans and animals are inextricable. We contain vestigial traits from every animal who has predated us in the evolutionary chain.
By the same token, animals contain nascent human traits.”

No argument here. I am not an opponent of evolution.

“All the actions of humans you despise, such as deception, violence, killing, and overconsumption exist throughout the animal kingdom.”

No argument here, either. Except that the scale of human violence & destructiveness is about a billion times worse than any of our animal ancestors. Humans have taken necessary evolutionary traits and made them into potent vices.

“And on and on in a spiral that has culminated in all the battles and competition that make up recorded history.”

Would you justify all the acts of violence, warfare and genocide by the above argument?

“What would it take to convince you that humanity is a part of nature? And that no matter how flawed, humanity has the same chance as the animals, the same chance life has always had?”

When I call the Homo sapiens an animal I am saying that humans are a part of nature. So there is no dispute.

I do believe that humans have the same choice as the animals. As you know (or should know) the vast majority of animals have already gone extinct. Uncountable billions of species have gone extinct over the last four billion years. All of the Homo sapiens’ ancestors have also gone extinct.

I believe that the above facts suggest that the Homo sapiens will also go extinct. Do you agree with this conclusion?

David Mathews / May 6th, 2006, 2:14 pm / #10

Hello Blacksun & Everyone,

In order to remind everyone of the massive human suffering present in the world today, I direct you to the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/synnv

Which is a video of Haitians making mud pies for sale and consumption.

In this world of plenty, filled with technology and conveniences unimaginable to former generations, exactly how is that entire nations are left to rot in the sun?

If science and technology cannot solve Haiti’s humanitarian crisis, what will?

Or, perhaps I should ask: Who will?

Haiti is just one of numerous collapsed nations suffering ecological catastrophes which lead to unrelenting human suffering. This is the world that we live in today, not a speculative future apocalypse.

BlackSun / May 8th, 2006, 1:12 pm / #11

I agree that there is a great deal of suffering in the world. The Haiti situation is appalling. But it is the work of thugs and politicians, not technology.

If it weren’t for technology, the ENTIRE world would live similar to how Europe lived in the Dark Ages, or people in Haiti live now.

Political problems require political solutions. Technology provides the means to relieve human suffering, but it is the job of leaders and governments to make sure the right technology is made available in the right places.

Clearly this has failed in Haiti.

Looking at the U.N. Human Development Index (which has been rising worldwide for years, even in the least developed countries), we see a correlation between energy usage and high values of the HDI.

http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1124&mode=nested

In order for the entire world to reach the plateau of the HDI, a major new sustainable energy technology must be developed. There are many candidates for the job.

Also check out: http://www.worldchanging.com

Given massive human suffering which could be alleviated, sustainable energy technology development appears to be the number one priority for the human race.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.