Category Archives: Science

Environmentalism cannot survive democracy

People will not put up with being pushed around forever.

So says an article in “Spiked” today, by editor Tom Slaytor.

Quote:

“The gilets jaunes – the French populist revolt against green fuel taxes which began in 2018 – had a brilliant slogan: they’re worried about the end of the world, we’re worried about the end of the month. No form of words since has better captured the dynamic at play: those with the time and money to worry about climate change are forcing punishing policies on those who are struggling to make ends meet.”

No-one has squared that circle yet, except those who would let the market forces allow human ingenuity do what it does best: adapt to changing circumstances.

Every other suggestion is, at best, self-delusionary, and at worst pretentious posturing and elitist dreaming of ruling and controlling the world — in other words: of playing God.

A Jesuit’s quest to “reform” Christianity

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s contribution to destroying western civilization

Before reading this illuminating article, I had heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. But all I knew was that he was a Jesuit cleric who lived in the early 20th century and who had somehow tried to reconcile Darwinism and Christianity.

However, according to the author of the above linked article, Matthew Ehret, Teilhard de Chardin’s role in shaping today’s discourses that are occupying and exercising minds is quite large. And he seems to have been one of the culprits responsible for the weakness of Christianity in the West today. For, as Ehret says in conclusion, it seems to have been Chardin’s conviction that “Christianity had to evolve with the times like any creature wishing to avoid extinction within a Darwinian fight for survival.”

Moreover, Chardin seems to have been a proponent of eugenics. I’ll get to that shortly. First, another thing I learnt is that Chardin seems to have been in the centre of contriving the Piltdown Man hoax and the “discovery” of the Peking Man, very likely a hoax as well.

Continue reading →

Wrong Again, and Again on the End of the World

50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

As we approach the COP 26 conference in Glasgow on climate change, it’s worth remembering the many false alarms with regard to the climate so-called scientists have uttered over the past five decades or so.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has compiled an illuminating list of false alarms which have over the years scared untold millions of people witless. So witless, that they are happy to sacrifice their wealth and that of their children, their children’s children and their neighbours, and the not yet even existing future wealth of the world’s poor in the hope of preventing climate change. So witless, that some of them are happy to resort to frankly terrorist methods in order to externalise their fear. (I’m speaking, of course, of “Extinction Rebellion” and their road-hugging soulmates from “Insulate Britain”).

It may not have been the purpose of those scientists, but the main consequence so far is that many people in the West are now practically begging for tyranny and offering themselves up for slavery to save their skins. It’s a sad spectacle of widespread witlessness. Worse is the mental illness this constant barrage of scaremongering is causing in many children.

But that’s not the scientist’s fault. That is the fault of people who thrive on scaremongering. I’m thinking in particular of the media and many sections of politics.

And the reason the scaremongers can run rampant is that there is no strong counternarrative. The churches, whose holy scripture contains hundreds of times the reminder and commandment to not be afraid, have in this regard been an embarrassing failure.

Against Apocalyptic Environmentalism

A discussion between Jordan Peterson and upbeat environmentalist Michael Shellenberger

Jordan Peterson, the celebrated psychologist and campaigner against restricted speech and other forms of censorship, has been back for quite a few months now after a long bout of mental and physical illness. His new, preferred format is long (1 to 2 hours) discussions with people who, like him, have done their homework and have something to say.

His latest discussion is with Michael Shellenberger, author of the book titled “Apocalypse Never”. I’ve watched the whole 1 hour 50 minutes of the conversation, and here are my notes and impressions of it. (I don’t claim my rendition is exhaustive. However, I think it provides a good idea of what was said.)

First of all: What a blessing it is, and how refreshing, in this age of quick memes, talking points and “cancellations”, to be able to follow two highly intelligent human beings involved in an exchange of ideas, ranging far, wide, and above all, deep, on some highly topical, contentious and relevant issues.

Continue reading →

On religion and medieval science

The church should have a say in what should be done, and what shouldn't

This is part 2 of my notes on the thoughts and ideas of Christopher Dawson. (In brackets the page numbers of each quote from TRBRAC, unless another book mentioned. “PwG” refers to my own thoughts.)     

“Dawson recognizes that the Western thinkers [of the Middle Ages] were aided by the Arabs and the Jews of the Western Mediterranean world.” (p. 183)

Connor quotes Dawson: “But if the scholars of the West had a great deal of ground to make up, they lost no time in doing so.” (p. 183)

“The introduction of the new science into Europe constituted a danger to the Christian religion, even as it did so to Judaism and to Islam.” (p. 183)

“Nevertheless, the task of reconciling the Aristotelian science with the teachings of the Christian religion was not abandoned: it found able and successful protagonists amongst some of the greatest minds of the Church. . . . it was St. Thomas of Aquin who actually accomplished the reconciliation.” (p. 184)

“[Medieval English philosopher and Franciscan friar Roger] Bacon realized the possibilities of science; he believed that it should be controlled by the Church and directed along lines that would enhance the spiritual power and prove socially beneficial.” (p. 187, my emphasis)

Dawson: “When Bacon sings the praises of experimental science that can create automobiles and flying machines and devices that will destroy a whole army at once, he is the prophet of modern science, nor can we, in these days of mechanized warfare and mechanized production, afford altogether to despise his warnings of the danger of allowing these vast forces to escape moral direction and social control.” (p. 188, my emphasis) (from: Mediaeval Religion, 1935)

(PwG:) In other words: The fact that we can do something doesn’t imply that we should. The church is the one institution that should and could play a much stronger role in the discussion as to what science should and shouldn’t do. We need God’s guidance not so much on what to discover, but on what to put into use. However, nowadays nothing is discovered “by chance” anymore. The “lab leak” theory of the Covid virus indicates that research was and is going on about how to change features of viruses to make them more dangerous/deadly to humans. The churches should ask the question, loudly: What’s the point? And excommunicate politicians, scientists, engineers etc. involved in such research. (On the force of excommunication nowadays I hope to post another text in future.)

Prevent AI from outsmarting us – but will it?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 6 and end

In the chapter titled “Will artificial intelligence outsmart us?”, Hawking again claims that it is a “triumph”, that we as human beings “who are ourselves mere stardust, have come to such a detailed understanding of the universe in which we live.” (183) Again, he doesn’t clarify what he means by “triumph”. Triumph over what, exactly? What’s the triumph in just “understanding” stuff? For what purpose?

Continue reading →

Let’s colonise space – but for what reason?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 5

Hawking is a huge advocate of manned spaceflight. He sees it as our only chance to escape the “almost inevitable . . . nuclear confrontation or environmental catastrophe [that] will cripple the Earth at some point in the next 1,000 years”, although he hopes that “we can avoid dropping the basket [currently containing all our “eggs”] before we learn how to escape from Earth”. (150)

At no point does he explain how, by going into space, we escape “nuclear confrontation” in space. This is a real possibility in the future, as it’s improbable we will become sinless this side of eternity. Hawking obviously hopes that the exploration, use and colonisation of space and extra-terrestrial objects will be advantageous for human development and flourishing. And he is probably right. However, he is not helping this cause by saying we need to do this to “escape” something. The general advice for anyone moving places, jobs etc. is that they should make sure of what they are moving towards before they start moving away from.    

Considering that, let’s see how Hawking tries to convince us of space colonisation, in the chapter titled “Should we colonise space?”

Continue reading →

Despite all that, let’s save the world – ok, but why?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 4

“Will we survive on earth?”, Hawking asks in the title to the 7th chapter of his book. Which begs the question, which he never attempts to answer in his book, why we should be worried about the survival of “parasites” such as humans. Let us however sincerely assume that Hawking hoped that we would survive. After all, he left children and grandchildren behind, and hoped to be remembered by them as a great dad and granddad. (247)

The dangers to our survival, according to Hawking, are these: Climate change and other environmental problems such as deforestation, disease, famine, and lack of water. These are all caused, he says, by over-population: “The Earth is becoming too small for us.” The reason for this claim is that “[o]ur physical resources are being drained at an alarming rate.” (147). This is a contestable claim, as the prices for raw materials have decreased over many decades. It is only incontestable considering the finite size of our planet: There is a finite amount of natural resources that make up the planet earth, because the earth is a finite sphere.

Continue reading →

Human beings are parasites – or the image of God?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 3

Hawking begins his chapter “Are we alone in the universe?” by stating that the behaviour of the human race “throughout history has been pretty stupid and not calculated to aid the survival of the species.” (67) This is somewhat strange, some might even say ungrateful, coming from a man who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21 but, with the help of modern medicine and technology, not only survived to the age of 76 but lead a productive life, advancing our knowledge of the universe, in particular of black holes.

However, when writing those words Hawking was just getting started. He then says that “most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life.” (69, my emphasis). Quite apart from this being incorrect biologically, and a surprising mistake for a scientist to make, this statement reveals a deeply misanthropic mindset. The above statement about “stupid history” was not a one-off, not a statement simply made to score some points with the upper classes, amongst which he often circulated, many of whom may look down on the less fortunate. No, that statement was the result of the same mindset: We humans are stupid parasites.

However, Hawking can’t make up his mind. In the introduction to his book, where he calls humans “mere collections of fundamental particles of nature”, he expresses wonderment at the fact that we have nonetheless, “been able to come to an understanding of the laws governing us, and our universe”. Moreover, this fact is a “triumph”, he claims, without saying over what. (21)

He claims, believably, to be very concerned about how we will feed an ever-growing population, how we will provide clean water, generate renewable energy, prevent and cure disease and slow down global climate change. However, he hopes that science and technology will provide solutions. He adds this appeal: “Let us fight for every woman and every man to have the opportunity to live healthy, secure lives, full of opportunity and love.” (22) Again, this is strange. Why would anyone who calls humans “parasites” with a “stupid history” wish that they succeed?

Continue reading →

Truth dissolving

A symptom of believing in salvation through government

“What is truth?”, Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, mockingly asked Jesus Christ shortly before condemning Him to death (John 18:38). The Lord didn’t answer him. Pilate had reacted to Jesus’ claim that He had born into the world “to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (John 18:37, NIV) He had already told his disciples: “I am the way and the truth and the life.” (John 14:6, NIV)

Against this background, consider this entry by economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo yesterday:

On page 163 of his infamous The Road to Serfdom Friedrich Hayek wrote that in totalitarian societies:

“The word ‘truth’ itself ceases to have its old meaning.  It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort [to enforce totalitarianism] and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.”  This last segment reminds you of Anthony Flipflop Fauci, doesn’t it?  (“Masks are useless,” then “Masks are mandatory”, bla, bla, bla).

This is the passage from The Road to Serfdom that I was thinking of in my blog in response to Google’s cutting off the ad revenue for the site, accusing us of contradicting “authoritative” consensus (aka the pronouncements of Biden, Fauci, Pelosi, Schumer, and all of their other commie comrades).

Hayek was right in seeing that “truth” and “totalitarianism” are irreconcilable. He was wrong however in thinking that the “individual conscience” is the “sole arbiter”. Our consciences need something to measure against, when considering an action or non-action. This standard is something that needs to be discovered. It was, arguably, discovered a long time ago and “set into stone”, so to speak. I’m thinking of course of the Ten Commandments. Jesus came to testify to the truth revealed in the Old Testament. That is what governments around the world and throughout history find so uncomfortable about Jesus and the Bible. Not just governments – but also those who hope to profit off them; and of course habitual private wrongdoers.