Volatility

June 26, 2018

To Cross the Bridge At All You Have to Burn It

>

And if you don’t cross it you must burn the Earth

 
 
Another lament from a science-concerned liberal. Science ethics professor Sheldon Krimsky is typical of the breed, coupling the usual factual demolition of Monsanto’s lies with hand-wringing about the honor of “Science” which often spills over into attacking the people who really threaten to destroy the basis of the power of Monsanto and the technocracy as a whole, something the good liberal establishment could never do and doesn’t want to do:
 
“This short aphorism [a slogan on a button he saw*] brought into focus two unfortunate realities. First, there are growing segments of the population who have lost confidence in science and choose to act on un-scientific or pseudo-scientific truth claims. And second, other segments of the population view scientists as just another stakeholder group subject to the same market influences in the competition for producing credible knowledge.”
 
On the contrary, these are promising realities. They indicate one of the widening fissures in the corporate prison wall. It is of course nothing but plain truth that establishment scientists are nothing but another stakeholder group which cares about power, money, prestige, not “truth.” (They may or may not seek scientific truth insofar as they can do this within the corporate science paradigm. But this paradigm always dictates the limits of allowable “truth”, as well as dictating the research agenda in the first place.)
 
And it’s equally plain truth that the people are acting rationally and adaptively (in a Darwinian sense) when they reject the nostrums of corporate “science”. It was never any different, at least not since “science” became an institutionalized capitalist profession rather than the domain of independently wealthy generalists such as Darwin. (And even they usually theorized scientifically in accord with the dominant socioeconomic theories of their class. Thus Darwin framed his depiction of evolution in terms of competition and natural selection of individuals, not because the evidence demanded such framing – the evidence at least as readily supports depictions based on cooperation and group selection – but because he was thinking along the lines of a commercial animal breeder, and more broadly in terms of Smithian capitalist ideology.)
 
Let’s see who really acts according to pseudo-science: For example, in the first third of the 20th century who believed most ardently in eugenics? That’s right, it was almost the entire scientific establishment, and educated “progressive” types in general. Just as these comprise the vanguard of the resurrected eugenics movement today. (Meanwhile in the 1920s the opposition was led by the despised “un-scientific” churches. That’s not the only time the churches have been on the side of actual scientific truth while the institutional science cadre was anti-science. Today organized religion hasn’t done humanity all that much good in opposing today’s eugenics. But today as then the most virulently anti-science group on earth is the STEM establishment. It’s no accident that in both cases the most cherished notion of scientists is eugenic control over life, and especially over human beings.)
 
But Krimsky, as an establishment cadre, has far more in common with Monsanto than with the people, which is why his criticism must remain within technocratic elitist bounds. But this guarantees that the criticism never becomes more than criticism, never becomes total war to abolish those who are murdering us and would murder us all.
 
Krimsky may think he’s fighting Monsanto, like some knight errant rushing to save the honor of the fair damsel “Science” from the foul clutches of the evil wizard. But in reality anyone familiar with the history of scientists knows there was little honor to save in the first place, and none today. Krimsky, by continuing to propagate good civics fantasies like “independent science” and “peer review”, is really reinforcing the corporate propaganda line that what’s really a biological and socioeconomic war should be viewed merely as a technical dispute within technocracy which should be disputed only on Monsanto’s chosen fake battlefield, that of establishment-vetted “science”. He’s trying to help Monsanto stop the people from freeing their minds by rejecting the whole fake scientism ideology.
 
 
*The slogan: “Science is Peer Reviewed, Not Politician Approved.” This is ahistorical nonsense. Power always has chosen what research is done in the first place and what the allowable results are. By the time one gets to “peer review” the research already has jumped through several far more important hoops which have zero to do with any exalted notion of scientific “truth”.
 
No doubt the button is supposed to be worn especially at fake “climate” demonstrations put on by tear-shedding liberal climate crocodiles who actually oppose all meaningful climate action every bit as much as their bugbear Trump does. The de facto climate deniers are vastly more pernicious than the de jure ones, since they pretend to care about the crisis and pretend to have the solution, when in fact their fake “solutions” have zero purpose but to let them feel smug while they buy time for civilization to destroy the Earth completely.
 
Their alleged solutions all involve the continuation of productionism, capitalism, consumerism. Just as George Bush said the right response to 9/11 was to keep shopping, so our climate crocodiles assure us that the right response to the climate crisis is to keep shopping. Just like their Monsanto-critical counterparts like Krimsky say is the right response to the ecological catastrophe of poisonism: Keep shopping, and only in system-approved venues. Thus his despair over the plummeting legitimacy of corporate system science.
 
Sure enough, Krimsky has declared that he cherishes the fantasy of “a livable planet without setting limits on economic growth.”
 
Economic “growth”, of course, never has been anything but cancer, in every figurative as well as literal sense. It is one of the most evil psychoses humanity has developed, and by far the most insane and self-destructive.
 
To reprise what I’ve written innumerable times at this site, there is one and only one solution to avert the worst of the climate crisis:
 
Stop emitting greenhouse gases at anything close to an industrial level; stop destroying carbon sinks; rebuild sinks on a mass scale.
 
Anything short of this is a lie. (Needless to say, no room left there for “growth”.) The only answer to every other ecological and human crisis is the same kind of answer.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

6 Comments »

  1. I’m on the same page regarding the pollution and the destruction of environment. that being said, the whole climate hoax is just that, a huge hoax. Carbon is the basis of life and we definitely need no such thing like “carbon sinks” (those are natural = more plants and growing bigger, as has been the case in times of dinosaurs where we had 50x more CO2 in the atmosphere than today).

    “Greenhouse” Effect is pure nonsense from a scientific POV, because the earth is not a closed system nor does carbon affect the temperature in any way (besides maybe slowing down both cooling and warming in the night/day cycle).

    Please try to dig deeper into the actual science instead of the propaganda, the whole climate hoax is nothing but yet another system for control and a huge cash machine.

    Again, pollution and destruction of environment are a separate issue and definitely important, but it has nothing to do with the “climate” hoax. You should strongly separate the two topics.

    Comment by Nope — June 28, 2018 @ 4:00 am

    • I won’t bother even starting to refute all your misconceptions, errors of fact, and canned lies. (It is amazing, though, how much wrongness one can pack into such a short comment.)

      The only question that interests me is why you would want to be such a pathetic stooge for Big Oil and Big Ag. Who, BTW, themselves have largely abandoned the die-hard de jure denial position you still cling to. They’ve found far more sophisticated ways to lie, and by now are closer to where the liberal scammers have always been.

      This site is dedicated to a truthful and realistic interaction with the climate crisis. Politically, that mostly means demolishing the liberal climate crocodile position (shedding tears over the crisis but touting nothing but purely fake “solutions”, because they don’t really want to change anything). But of course this site rejects with contempt the unreconstructed de jure denial position as well. What’s most contemptible about it isn’t even how wrong you are, but the way you choose to be an unpaid shill for the 1% like that. How well is that working out for you?

      I’m interested only in people who renounce the system, who want to destroy those who destroy the Earth.

      Comment by Russ — June 28, 2018 @ 5:19 am

      • Please feel free to refute what you think are “errors”, though I don’t see how – being that there are none in my post above, at least regarding the scientific part. I’m very good at physics and I did check all the fake science and fudge they’re selling. It’s nonsense and it’s an irrefutable fact.

        Nothing to do with big oil nor shilling for anyone, quite the contrary – I’m very much against the Luddite destroyers of civilization who are selling the climate hoax as a control mechanism and making billions of $$$ along the way, while making our lives more miserable (Al Gore being a perfect example of such). Just as much as I’m against the warmongering corporate entities plunging half of the world into senseless wars for a few drops of oil, not much better either. Both are working for the same master and both are equally horrible.

        I don’t want to “destroy” anyone, though it would be nice to remove psychos from the power structures of our society. First you’d have to offer a better alternative though and as of today, I have none that could work (taking human nature into account).

        As said, I’m on the same page regarding actual pollution, real environmental issues (industrial/chemical waste, plastic overkill, waste of resources and so on), but please stop supporting the “olive green” fraction of the control mechanism you are supposedly fighting. It goes against your stated goal.

        Comment by Nope — June 29, 2018 @ 2:35 am

      • Well then you have some personal religious animus to climate science, who knows. Obviously the science is one thing and the liberal political scam is another, just like with so many other things. In your case at any rate you’re aligned with the corporations.

        But I think you mistake this site for DeSmogBlog or something. Go there and argue with people who think it’s not a waste of time to argue with terminal deniers. You don’t have a basic comprehension of what the greenhouse effect or a carbon sink even is, let alone the capability to argue about them. I learned not to argue with pro-GMO trolls, and I’m not going to rehash the process with climate deniers.

        This site is dedicated to the word of the Earth and isn’t going to argue about it. I’m here to speak to what’s happening and what’s necessary. If you don’t like talking about Gaia’s kinesis in terms of civilization-driven climate change, don’t. But there won’t be any denial here, which is simply a corporate and civilizational lie.

        Comment by Russ — June 29, 2018 @ 5:52 am

      • “You don’t have a basic comprehension of what the greenhouse effect or a carbon sink even is…”

        … riiiight. Now I’m devastated.

        “let alone the capability to argue about them.”

        Of course. Because I tend to stick to hard arguments intead of insutling people I don’t agree with.

        I thought you might be genuine, but obviously you’re just another limited hangout. Wish you a nice life, you won’t see me here again.

        Comment by nope — July 2, 2018 @ 3:51 am

      • I can’t imagine what the hard argument against a methane plume from melting permafrost is, but at any rate you didn’t make it. And I’ve spent enough years farming and studying soil ecology that you’ll have to forgive me if I’m not overly civil with someone who skips right over from the CEI site with the good news about how sinks “really” work.

        Comment by Russ — July 2, 2018 @ 9:29 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: