Humans are just too stupid to listen to the global warming hysterics. So saith James Lovelock, author of the Gaia Theory, you know, the idea that the earth and all of its organic and non organic parts are really part of one, living, self-regulating, system. From the story:
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory. “I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”
What bilge. Look around us. We are richer, freer, and more humane than any time in history. We have broken the back of racism. We have fed the multitudes. We have extended life expectancies. We have extended literacy. We have landed on the moon. Etc. Etc. Etc.
But that’s not meaningful. To get to meaningful, we have to dismantle freedom!
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
Except we don’t put democracy on hold during wars. Not the Civil War, not World Wars I or II, not Vietnam, or Iraq. The NY Times’ Tom Friedman might agree that we should go authoritarian–sigh, ah China!–but let arrogant misanthropes of Lovelock’s ilk control our destinies and fortunes? Not on a bet. Indeed, they should not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.
March 29th, 2010 | 10:54 pm
That’s horrible. Keep him away from everyone!
March 29th, 2010 | 11:13 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by I am Lori Girl!. I am Lori Girl! said: RT @CO2HOG: SHS: Global Warming Hysteria: James Lovelock’s Anti Democratic Anti Humanism http://bit.ly/cUlhxW #tcot [...]
March 30th, 2010 | 12:18 pm
We need to take responsibility for what we have done to god’s creation. We are ruining it for future generations in a quest to continually expand our bloated waistlines out of pure selfishness.
Isn’t science central to the preservation and maintenance of our species’ habitat?
If those accomplishments are so wonderful (feeding the multitudes – Norman Borlaug, landing on the moon, living longer, etc, etc), shouldn’t we then be promoting science to its utmost?
Isn’t science education critical for that? Including learning what science is and what it is not?
Why then do we enable (through continued financial/policy support) centers whose stated purpose is to remove science and promote pseudoscience in its place?
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
March 30th, 2010 | 7:45 pm
Human freedom is more important than the survival of the human race (not that I think climate change will cause that, but let’s argue for Lovelock’s sake). In the same way we should respect somebody’s decision to end their own life, we should respect a country’s decision to wipe itself out through environmental disasters.
Perhaps we could argue that the citizens of a country know not what they do when they vote for policies that might doom them, but then the solution is to educate the public, rather than ignore them.
March 31st, 2010 | 10:56 am
As for the climate email hackings…
the scientists have been mostly absolved, apparently.
It would be objective to report this:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm
April 2nd, 2010 | 9:00 am
I’m not really sure why Dr. Lovelock is held up as some kind of expert on climate change, so I guess I can see where some of the indignation in this post is coming from. However, I don’t know that what he says is meant to be taken completely literally as an ideologically motivated public policy program.
I suppose it’s more common in Britain than in America for someone to make a statement more for the effect it will have on the listener than because he earnestly believes it. This article over at the BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm ) has a really good quote which is not in the Guardian’s piece, he says that science used to be a vocation and has now become a career.
So what I think he is trying to do is not really suggest a particular political course (do you honestly think that he wants to get rid of democracy and if so, why bother listening to him?) but rather to prod our minds into thinking about things in different ways. That’s how you keep science moving and avoid politically correct careerism. Maybe his theories are a bit too “out there” for some of you, and I can certainly understand why you might feel that way, but the man is 90 years old and so I think he’s earned the right to be a little wacky.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact