Dard Kelm tells Time Patrol trainees that, in the period when time travel is discovered, governments are pawns in a galactic game between giant combines. (The Guardians Of Time, p. 17) This does not surprise us.
Thus, combining the two narratives, individuals are controlled by governments which are controlled by commercial rivals. The real power is neither individual nor political but economic. But we can change it.
50 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But socialism is not the way to bring about any long lasting, beneficial change. Because any system where the state controls the economy either has never worked or might lead precisely to those "giant combines."
Far better to disperse and de-concentrate political and economic both on Earth and by founding new nations and societies off Earth on the Moon, Mars, the asteroid belt, the Oort Cloud, planets of other stars, etc. Which is one of the things Robert Zubrin advocates in his book THE CASE FOR SPACE.
Ad astra! Sean
In most historical settings, there's no distinction between economic and political power, because the one necessarily brings the other; usually political power comes first, and as the great pioneering German sociologist Max Weber pointed out, the ultimately decisive means of political action is always violence.
But for economic actors to control government -in that capacity-, you need an unusual type of government: an unusually law-abiding one.
This is because in most settings, the people in control of physical force simply take the economic rewards: archetypically, control over land and the peasants who work it.
In classic European feudalism, there were no "owners" of land, and there was no distinction between owning land and governing the people on it: and the knightly class, the bottom of the aristocratic pyramid, were themselves violence specialists. Being administrators (or estate managers) was a secondary occupation for them: what they were -in essentio- was warriors of a particular specialized type.
The higher aristocracies and the kings were also knights; and they were the ones who organized the great feudal sport (war) and built castles.
Japanese society after the Heinan period and the rise of the Samurai was strikingly similar.
Originally in Japan as society became more than village chiefs, the land had been controlled by the Emperor and the Court aristocracy in a model which tried to imitate China.
The samura, originally working for the court nobles, i gradually took it over, and eventually just froze the Heinan-era aristocracy out, taking land with the edge of the sword and fighting amongst themselves to control it, organized by clans and by hierarchies of vassalage.
(The Heike Monogatari, the Tale of the Heike, is about the conflict between the Taira clan and Minamoto and the rise of the first Shoguns, when Japan became fully dominated by the military class and the "Barbarian-subduing Generalissimos, with the Emperor reduced to a mostly-religious figurehead.)
Property necessarily is defined by power. For the people who control the ultimate source of political power -- violence -- to become the creatures of those whose influence derives from property (a secondary phenomenon), the people who control the "means of destruction" must be restrained by internalized allegiance to rules.
Otherwise, they'd just kill the property-owners, or give them a smash in the face and -take- what they wanted.
This always -incipiently- a problem in any society above the hunter-gatherer level: constraining the violence specialists is necessary, but it depends on the gossamer bonds that exist only in human heads -- law and custom.
Law and custom are slow and hard to build up, but they can be destroyed in moments if one party to the inevitable quarrels and rivalries in an organized society decides to kick over the table and pull a gun -- or draw a sword.
Gold for the merchant
Silver for the maid;
Copper for the craftsman
Cunning at his trade.
"Good," laughed the baron
Sitting in his hall:
"But iron -- cold hard iron
Shall be master of them all."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, I have to agree. Thru out history the "military specialists," in whatsoever form, have always either dominated human societies or have been restrained by those "gossamer bonds" of law and custom. Yes, it took very unusual changes happening in the late Medieval era which led to our current society-and we can have no guarantee that it will last. If the quarrels and factional strife inevitable in any human society goes too far, the military specialists could lose that respect for law and custom so necessary for enabling and advanced society to endure.
But you only quoted the first stanzas of Kipling's "Cold Iron"! The rest of the poem goes on to show the Baron being humbled by Christ, whose mercy to His rebellious vassal led to a change of heart. Religious belief too can be among those factors leading to the taming of the military specialists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: but only if they, in some sense, -agree- to it.
It comes back to Machiavelli’s discussion of whether it’s better to be feared or loved. You have to -persuade- people to love you (or to love/believe in something), but you can -compel- people to fear.
Persuasion is tap-dancing on the edge of a precipice. You can always fall in — the magic spell can cease to work, the legitimacy can vanish, the sword can come out.
But -having fallen off the edge- is a “stable state”. It’s much harder to get out of than to get in to it.
The usual counter to this is the “blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church” one. The counter to -that- is, “When was the last time you met an Albigensian”?
The Crusades and the Holy Office’s rack and stake obliterated the Catharsis by the simple expedient of killing all the ones who wouldn’t shut up and terrorizing the others into shutting up so the belief wasn’t passed on. Within a generation or two, Catharism was extinct — despite the most fervent belief and a widespread willingness to be martyred.
Persecution works — but not in moderation. The Roman Emperors didn’t persecute Christianity out of existence because they didn’t really try very hard.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for writing two very interesting notes. I know you are a very busy man, writing your books.
I do believe and agree that ideas, including beliefs about religion and philosophy, have to be BELIEVED in before men, including me, prone to be tempted to use force, can be restrained, to accept the legitimacy of what ever society/regime we live under.
If any society is to be reasonably tolerable, I also believe some such belief/legitimacy will be necessary. I think it would be eventually intolerable to live and govern only by fear and force, or the threat of force.
Trivial point, were you making a pun with "Catharsis," instead of "Cathars"?
Yes, I agree brutality and force can work, if you are NOT moderate about it. I dislike the brutality of the Albigensian Crusade, despite my EMPHATIC disagreement with Albigensian errors. I would far rather have continued trying to persuade and convert the Cathars.
I think you are agnostic where it comes to questions about God. And I can see why you think that if the Roman Emperors had been utterly ruthless about persecuting Christianity, instead of reluctant and half hearted, the faith could or would have been stamped out. Where I differ from is in believing in the supernatural origins of Christianity, meaning I believe it could not have been stamped out.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: thing is, the Cathars undoubtedly believed that too...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But the Albigensians were not even heretical Christians. Rather, they were a dualistic neo-Manichaean sect teaching beliefs no Christian can agree with, such as there being two Gods, one good and one evil. Other ideas no Christian can agree with being the disgusting vileness and evil of the world, and in fact of all life. Some of their ideas reminds me of the tenets of the religion of the Peacock Angel in THE PESHAWAR LANCERS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If I were an Albigensian, I would be interested in discussing differences but not in having my errors endlessly explained to me.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I have no objection to debate and discussion! But the Albigensians themselves must have done plenty of objecting to Christian "errors" themselves to have spread so widely thru out Southern France by AD 1200/
I think it's fair to say the Albigensians were a spinoff of the Bogomils, who might have been in turn a spinoff of the Manichaeans. I think the Mandaeans of the Middle East might be the real world sect existing today who could be the closest to having beliefs today closest to neo-Manichaeanism.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I've been wondering what you thought about Mr. Stirling's comments about "military specialists." That an urgent problem all societies above the hunter/gatherer level has to solve is to instill in both its people and the "violence specialists" a respect for law and custom sufficient to both ensure domestic peace and a lawful and legitimate transmission of power. And I believe legitimacy can take different forms.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The comments are correct. When the current economic system goes into deep enough crisis, possibly linked to or caused by its ecological consequences, then democracy will become unworkable and there will be a military takeover but the army will maintain social order while the super-rich will continue to control (whatever is left of) economic production.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
If the only alternative to a military dictatorship is anarchy, chaos, civil wars. then I would have to reluctantly accept military dictatorship. Which would be easier to do if the dictator happens to be like Hans Molitor, an able and reasonably decent man. With luck such a dictatorship might even evolve into a new regime accepted as legitimate.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that there is always an alternative but people have to want it and, if necessary, fight for it. The fact the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can say that we have only 12 years to prevent an irreversible ecological catastrophe yet it is necessary for large numbers of people to demonstrate and disrupt in an attempt to get governments to take any notice is a definite sign that something is very wrong with current decision-making processes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Problem is, while I agree that climate changes as time passes and human activities can affect or influence some of those changes, I am not sure of how true some of the more extreme claims are. John Wright has been publishing what I consider hard hitting and trenchant counter-rebuttals on his blog. And I certainly don't agree with some of the more autocratic "solutions," amounting to nothing but yet more taxes, regulations, and concentrating of power in the state.
And I think you are too optimistic about those "alternatives" to a military dictatorship if a nation is suffering from chaos, anarchy, and civil wars. Historically, and in actual fact, order and some kind of stability was restored by means of a dictatorship.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the global temperature is rising because of carbon in the atmosphere. How can an intergovernmental scientific panel be wrong about this? Scientific findings are accepted except when their conclusions challenge the status quo. Then people like John Wright predictably line up. Maybe you could email me links to some of his arguments?
If the choice is between an imminent irreversible catastrophe and measures which you find unacceptable, then what should be done? Business as usual - for the next twelve (now eleven) years?
I have walked to Morecambe and visited Andrea and must now meditate but then, I hope, blog.
Paul.
On past form, I expect Wright's arguments to be accompanied by contempt for everyone on the other side of the argument but maybe he will surprise me for the better? In any case, the only issue that matters is whose argument is right. What a relief if there really were no imminent catastrophe!
Kaor, Paul!
I cannot totally dismiss all the arguments against the view you believe is correct. But I will send you the links to some of the arguments Mr. Wright makes. Also, merely a UN agency made this declaration doesn't necessarily mean it was right. To say nothing of possible fraud and partisan ax grinding!
I understand what you mean by your discomfort with Mr. Wright's style or method of writing. It seems to me that the uninhibited or forceful ways of speaking and writing so common in the US makes many in the UK uncomfortable. I can only suggest trying to ignore the more purple flourishes in Mr. Wright's commentary and focus on the science.
Ad astra! Sean
And, for he record, I would personally rather see the world burn that to see these vile, lying, socialist, godless, sexually-perverted sons of dogs have their way in trampling all liberty. The extinction of all human life in the horrid torment of a lingering apocalypse of fire, while flame-lashed multitudes perish in tears and wails of starvation, all lands and mountains smothered by rising levels of seas of boiling water, does, at first, seem a slight drawback, but if it discomforts these smug little smear merchants and hinders their grotesque power lust from achieving its object, we should at at least be willing to contemplate the possibility. Fiat justitia ruat caelum,
-John Wright.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/10/some-questions-from-an-advocate-for-climate-stasis/#more-24223
The source for the preceding comment.
Please be courteous. You are replying to real people, who are fellow children of God.
-John Wright.
Were it not a hoax, no one would need to pour lavish bribes into the purses of NASA officers and other senior political and scientific figures to pay for them to make public statements to the press reciting the alarmist talking points.
-http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/10/global-cooling-warming-changing-crisis-denier/#more-24209
Finally, Reds are liars. It is built into their political philosophy, their epistemology, their ontology, their metaphysics, their whole way of life. Falsehood is nectar to them, and truth is wormwood.
-http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/10/a-statement-for-advocates-of-climate-stasis/#more
The Reds I know are honest.
-Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
As I said, uninhibited purple prose! Believe me, the left in the US can be just as impassioned, if not even more so! My personal preference is for the far more temperate style favored by NATIONAL REVIEW.
As for the bit about Reds being liars, I have to mostly agree with Mr. Wright. I don't see much, if any honesty in the US left today. And EVERY single Marxist regime which came to power HAS been dishonest, to put it mildly.
Ad astra! Sean
I welcome correction on the point of any accurate predictions arising from any computer models of the climate: the ice cap was predicted to melt. It grew. Sea levels were predicted to rise. They did not. Average world global temperature was expected to rise. It leveled off. The frequency and severity of tropic storms was expected to increase. They decreased.
-http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/10/some-questions-from-an-advocate-for-climate-stasis/#more-24223
Sean,
This is more than purple prose. Lying is built into every aspect of our (Reds') philosophy and our entire way of life? We love falsehood and hate truth? Wright complains about people on his side being "demonized"! The man strikes me as deranged.
"...vile, lying, socialist, sexually-perverted sons of dogs..." It would be better for the world to burn?
He alleges bribery of NASA officials to falsify data. Who has offered bribes? Who has accepted them? If there is evidence, then there need to be prosecutions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, I still agree with Wright's view of "Reds", if you mean Marxists. TOO MANY millions have died in the purges, mass executions, and gulags of all Marxist regimes for me to have anything but contempt for them. Altho I would not have expressed that contempt the way Wright does.
The charge Wright made about NASA officials taking bribes is serious and he should be called on to back it up. I can no longer comment on Mr. Wright's blog because I somehow messed up the periodical re-registering combox users have to go thru. But I can send him a private email making such an inquiry. And I will.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But his "Reds" include current climate campaigners who certainly do not support purges, mass executions or gulags.
Paul.
Are the ice caps not melting? Mr Wright says that an ice cap has grown. See previous comments.
Kaor, Paul!
In haste. Granted, not all "Reds" will be like the ones who came to rule nations.
Considering how ice caps have alternately melted or reformed thru out Earth's history, I can't get too excited about ice caps. Sorry!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I can (get excited about ice caps). I understand that they are melting rapidly. But Wright said that one had grown. Which is right?
Paul.
Since the early 1900s, many glaciers around the world have been rapidly melting. Human activities are at the root of this phenomenon. Specifically, since the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have raised temperatures, even higher in the poles, and as a result, glaciers are rapidly melting, calving off into the sea and retreating on land.
Even if we significantly curb emissions in the coming decades, more than a third of the world’s remaining glaciers will melt before the year 2100. When it comes to sea ice, 95% of the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic is already gone.
Scientists project that if emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice free in the summer as soon as the year 2040 as ocean and air temperatures continue to rise rapidly.
-https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/why-are-glaciers-and-sea-ice-melting
How much and how quickly these Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt in the future will largely determine how much ocean levels rise in the future. If emissions continue to rise, the current rate of melting on the Greenland ice sheet is expected to double by the end of the century. Alarmingly, if all the ice on Greenland melted, it would raise global sea levels by 20 feet.
-https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/why-are-glaciers-and-sea-ice-melting
Kaor, Paul!
I've also seen both Robert Zubrin (in his book THE CASE FOR SPACE) and John Wright that if climate change is that much of a danger for mankind, the way to solve this predicament is to think of it as engineering problem. They have both argued for using IRON OXIDES (plain old RUST) scattered over certain parts of the oceans, to absorb carbon dioxide, which would plankton blooms which, when consumed by plankton and other marine life forms would sink to the bottom of the sea, removing the carbon dioxide for millions of years.
Robert Zubrin discussed how this was actually tried in, I think, the delta of the Columbia River, and succeeded stunningly, not only was carbon dioxide removed, but fish populations exploded from feeding on the plankton blooms. And thus giving employment to fishers long plagued by declining numbers of salmon.
You would think this would be greeted with rapture by the climate change alarmists. But, no, it was not. And easy to see why! Using something so simple as the iron oxides scattered by an elderly marine biologist and a few Indian fishers means there would be no need for giant bureaucracies, crushing taxes, and strangling regulations. Zubrin commented on how underwhelmingly the media and climate change "experts" commented on this SUCCESSFUL experiment.
You have been flatteringly interested enough in some of the books I've sometimes mentioned in this blog to buy copies yourself. I would like to recommend Robert Zubrin's THE CASE FOR SPACE. It reads a lot like an updated version of Jerry Pournelle's A STEP FARTHER OUT (which itself is still useful to read AND act on).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Any solution needs to be tried. Has this solution been suggested to "climate change alarmists"? If they have rejected it, what were their stated reasons?
Why are salmon numbers declining? I have been told because oceanic warming is killing organisms that they eat.
Paul.
Is Wright right to say that an ice cap has grown?
Kaor, Paul!
Besides the evidence found by Professor Ewert that some officials at NASA deliberately falsified the data measuring climate changes in order to advance a preferred agenda, I'm focusing here on a stunningly successful experiment on REMOVING carbon dioxide which has been ignored or under reported in thy media, because the results did not fit in with what climate change alarmists wanted. The text quoted below came from pages 227-28 of THE CASE FOR SPACE (Prometheus Books: 2019), by Robert Zubrin.
The basis for a much more promising approach was
demonstrated by the British Columbia-based Haida First
Nations tribe, who in 2012 launched an effort to restore
the salmon fishery that has provided much of their live-
lihood for centuries. Acting collectively, the Haida
voted to form the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation,
financed it with $2.5 million of their own savings, and
used it to support the efforts of American scientist-
entrepreneur Russ George to demonstrate the feasibility
of open-sea mariculture through the distribution of
120 tons of iron sulfate into the northeast Pacific to
stimulate a phytoplankton bloom, which in turn would
provide ample food for baby salmon.
By 2014, this controversial experiment proved to be a
stunning over-the-top success. In that year, the number
of salmon caught in the northeast Pacific more than
quadrupled, going from 50 million to 219 million. In
the Fraser River, which only once before in history
had a salmon run greater than 25 million (about 45
million in 2010), the number of salmon increased to
72 million.
"Up and down the West Coast fisheries scientists and
fishers are reporting they are baffled at the miraculous
return of salmon seen last fall and expected this year,
commented George. "It is of course all because when we
take care of our ocean pasture. Replenish the vital
natural micronutrients that we have denied them through
our high and rising CO2, just one old guy (me) with a
dozen Indians can bring the ocean back to health and
abundance."
In addition to producing salmon, this extraordinary
experiment yielded a huge amount of data. Within a few
months after the ocean-fertilizing operation, NASA
satellite images taken from orbit showed a powerful
growth of phytoplankton in the waters that received
the Haida's iron. It is now clear that as hoped, these
did indeed serve as a food source for zooplankton, which
in turn provided nourishment for multitudes of young
salmon, thereby restoring the depleted fishery and pro-
viding abundant food for larger fish and sea mammals as
well. In additions since those diatoms that were not
eaten went to the bottom, a large amount of carbon
dioxide was sequestered in their calcium carbonbate
shells.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I hope the quotes in my previous note from Zubrin's book was of some interest to you. Also, given your oft-stated advocacy of "popular actions," isn't what Russ George and his Haida friends did of far great USE than marches and demonstrations where the only "solutions" that seem to be offered are MORE crushing taxes, bureaucracy and regulations? I'll give below one more quote from Zubrin's book, from page 228.
Unfortunately, the experiment, which should have
received universal acclaim, was denounced by many
leading environmental activists. For example, Silvia
Ribeiro, of the international environmental watch-
dog ETC group, objected to it on the basis that it
might undermine the case for carbon rationing. "It is
now more urgent than ever that governments unequivo-
cally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments.
They are a dangerous distraction providing governments
and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil
fuel emissions." Writing in the NEW YORK TIMES, Naomi
Klein, the author of a book "on how the climate crisis
can spur economic and political transformation, said
that, "at first,...it felt like a miracle." But then
she was struck by a disturbing thought:
Zubrin went on to quote how Klein complain that experiments like those of Russ George and the Haida struck her as "sinister," because it meant that human efforts at geoengineering, such as "...dimming the sun or fertilizing the seas--all natural events can begin to take on an unnatural tinge...A presence that felt like a miraculous gift suddenly seems sinister; as if all of nature were being manipulated behind the scenes.
So there you have it, opposition to things like the Russ George experiment is based on nothing but either resentment at how preferred big government "solutions" are being shown up as unneeded and unsatisfactory or some pseudo mystic twaddle about "manipulating" nature. "Nature," of course, is not sentient, and does not care about either salmon or human beings. Nature simply exists, for humans to manage, either wisely or foolishly.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I should have also added that if we want to replace fossil fuels, which I agree is a good idea. We have to be REALISTIC about the PRACTICAL alternative if we want to continue to have a high tech civilization. And that requires abundant and relatively cheap energy. At present that can only mean nuclear energy. What we need are pro nuclear marches and demonstrations!
And greater use of experiments like those of Russ George and the Haida!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
In haste. Will have to read through these comments later. I think that climate change "alarmists" are informed and honest and will welcome any solution to any of the environmental problems. The idea that they are a conspiracy with a particular political agenda and are lying to achieve that agenda does not make sense. However, I will read whatever evidence is presented.
Paul.
To everyone else:
Sean and I also correspond by email so not everything is here.
Sean,
I agree that this rust solution should be used but it would have to be used continually and globally to counteract an increasing problem. Would that work?
Does it make more sense to put carbon into the air, then to take it out, than to stop putting it in? One of my jobs was as a cleaner. I hoovered carpets in an office building every day because managers continually walked back and forth between that building and the factory without changing their footwear.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would say HONEST climate alarmists are not knowingly furthering a dishonest agenda. But there are demagogues who know better and do pursue a bad agenda to further their own ends. I don't think that's necessarily "conspiratorial," simply human nature and corruption and foolishness at work. Which reminds me of how Poul Anderson said similar things in the "Commentary" he wrote for SPACE FOLK.
As long as we don't get serious about nuclear power and use practical alternatives to fossil fuels, then it will be necessary to use iron sulfates to remove excess carbon dioxide. At least it works! And "carbon rationing," giant bureaucracies, and crushing taxes will not.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I would like to know who are the demagogues who do know better. Such an accusation can also be made against the other side. Corporations whose profits depend on maintaining the status quo certainly have self-serving agendas - provided that they overlook our common need for survival.
My questions about iron sulfates still stand. Can they be used indefinitely against an increasing problem? Is it not better to stop putting the carbon into the atmosphere? Corporations, realizing the need for survival, should not need bureaucracies or taxes to force them to cooperate.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I strongly suspect the scientist discussed in one of the articles John Wright sent me, is one of those cynical opportunists who do know better but peddle a false line because it either suits them or advances their favored agenda. I don't think that is such an impossible thing to think is at least possible.
And I would prefer to encourage companies to either support nuclear power or the use of iron sulfates scattered at the right locations in the oceans for sopping up excess carbon dioxide. I can imagine mariculture companies opening fish ranches for harvesting useful fishes of all kinds proliferating from the use of rust. That would be creating more wealth, baking MORE pies, for the whole world to use.
What do most climate alarmists ADVOCATE if they don't want to use iron sulfates or nuclear energy? If all they can think of is "carbon rationing," crushing taxes, and giant bureaucracies, or choking regulations, then I would absolutely oppose them!
I ask the climate alarmists: do you have any practical ideas that WORKS if you reject the Russ George experiment or nuclear energy?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
This week, I will attend the launch of a book called SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE, and will ask about iron sulfates and nuclear energy.
I don't buy these "cynical opportunists." Ad I understand it, the ice caps are melting and the weather is changing but vested interests deny this.
Paul.
Sean,
Some of us inhabit different conceptual universes. Very many people believe - based not just on demagogery or on a few falsified data but on evidence like continually rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, floods, heat waves, the IPCC report, oceanic pollution and escalating species extinctions - that the present system of economic production, which is any case continually transforming itself, is so environmentally destructive that it will change radically either because warnings will be heeded or because crises will escalate in this century, like entire equatorial populations migrating north as their countries become uninhabitable. If that is true, then many of us will live to see it. If it might be true, then the warning needs to be taken seriously. Many say that this is no longer a "might." Counteracting increasing atmospheric carbon sounds like a sticking plaster: helpful but not enough.
A few people getting into space and leaving behind them a wrecked Earth is not a good idea. Moving industries into space is a very good idea but cannot be done on the projected timescale.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm extremely suspicious of "system change" if all that amounts to is more taxes, more bureaucracy, more power being concentrated in the state, etc. No, I would oppose such a "system change."
It's not enough to berate our current system of economics for its alleged flaws if its critics have nothing concrete and workable to replace it with except more of the same old failed big gov't policies and "central planning" of the economy.
Again, I have to disagree. Because there are people who are demagogues or cynical opportunists. I see many of them in US politics. Or their flacks and flunkies in the media and academia!
I argue that policies based on falsified data will inevitably fail for that reason alone. They would be policies not based on REALITY. After reading about Prof. Ewert's work, I'm now skeptical of that IPCC report.
We KNOW that iron sulfates for sopping up excess carbon dioxide and nuclear energy WORKS. Do the climate alarmists have any PRACTICAL ideas?
And I still advocate a REAL space program, using many of the ideas laid out in books like Jerry Pournelle's A STEP FARTHER OUT and the recently pub. work by Robert Zubrin called THE CASE FOR SPACE. I see far more hope and realism in them than in any thing the climate alarmists seem able to offer.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
John Wright said that, if the only options were a burning world and central planning, he would choose the former. Also, that the central planners would be vile, sexually-perverted sons of dogs. I imagine that, if faced with that choice, you would prefer the world to survive.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, which is why I've been placing more stress on the work of Pournelle and Zubrin. Far more temperate language and offering CONCRETE ideas and suggestions.
I remain esp. impressed by Russ George's experiment! That was taking concrete action and getting real results.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment