North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › Closer to midnight

Closer to midnight

Closed to new replies

A former member
Post #: 12
Post retracted
A former member
Post #: 159
[Donavan said]
The good news is that if Objectivists are the most rational beings, maybe we will/can survive Armageddon, and have our chance as the primary philosophy for a totally new society.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The scientists who mind the Doomsday Clock moved it two minutes closer to midnight on Wednesday -- symbolizing the annihilation of civilization and adding the perils of global warming for the first time.

The next thing you know they will be including feminism's claim that testosterone is the leading cause of violence in the world and that all men need to be castrated to prevent a global catastrophe.

Seriously, there are some people out there who think that men become violent when they are in the pursuit of love, or when they express betrayal when that love has let them down significantly.

However, I'm not sure about Objectivists picking up the pieces once there is a global catastrophe. If man is not seeking rationality now, why would they when disaster strikes? A rational man seeks and follows rationality at all times, he doesn't wait for a disaster in order to turn to reason and reality. I suppose some people might turn to reason when disaster strikes, if they have a good enough example, but they would have to first be convinced, for instance, that it wasn't an "act of God" that brought about the disaster in the first place, but rather was due to people being irrational.

Unfortunately, these scientists who created the Doomsday Clock do not see acts of rational individualism -- such as industrialization and self-defense -- as acts of rationality needed for man's survival qua man.

In other words, they are against rationality as such, which is the real doomsday scenario.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Philosophic essays based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

www.appliedphilosophyonline.com­

Applied Philosophy Online .com

Where Ideas Are Brought Down to Earth!

tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com

All rights reserved 2006 by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

A former member
Post #: 13
Post retracted
A former member
Post #: 160
[Donavan said]
If all the irrational people kill each other off with whatever crazy means they choose, and we can survive hypothetically, then we would have a chance to live in a totally new society.

Letting people kill each other off on the grounds that they are irrational and deserve to die severely undercuts the entire bases of civilization: the operation of rationality and the non-initiation of force. It would be a violation of the individual rights of the rational to permit such a thing to happen, since we would have no idea who those irrational people would want to annihilate -- including the innocent and the rational -- so we can't permit that to happen.

Besides, it is not necessary to let civilization fall before erecting a more rational society; all we have to do is speak out for rationality and continue to intimidate the irrational by such speaking out with rational moral certitude.

Regarding global warming, I think it is bunk on several levels; and the solution is capitalism anyhow, which would create both more efficient cars and even unheard of means of personal transportation (possibly even nuclear powered automobiles!). The solution to the proposed problem is certainly not shutting down industrialization, which would kill off millions of people.

The onus of proof is not on those of us who deny that there is a global warming crisis,; it is those who support such a view who must prove it. There have been many times in the earths's history whereby the average temperature of the earth has increased, including times long before man even evolved.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Philosophic essays based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

www.appliedphilosophyonline.com­

Applied Philosophy Online .com

Where Ideas Are Brought Down to Earth!

tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com

All rights reserved 2006 by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

Hammad H.
user 2469690
San Marcos, TX
Post #: 59
To Donovan-A:

But in regards to being on board with global warming, I think there is enough evidence to support that humanity has an effect on the environment, including climate.


And what is this evidence? Merely asserting that there is evidence does not provide it. I do not claim certainty on the question of man-made global warming, but I lean toward the deniers. Why? The advocates of the theory of man-made global warming are notoriously bad at making arbitrary assertions like the one above. (See, for example, the article you copied to your post.) Or else they assert, as though it is proof, that there is a concensus of scientists that upholds the theory. Leaving aside the question of whether there is such a concensus (as there are many scientists who oppose the theory), that is nothing but as naked an appeal to authority as anyone could ask for. Or else, they assert that the proponents of the theory are peer-reviewed, as if that is a guarantee of their objectivity. If one's peer's within a scientific field are biased and non-objective (and I think the majority within any scientific field today lean to the left), being peer-reviewed prior to publication is not a guarantor of objectivity. (Indeed, it can be a major obstacle to it.) For evidence that these are what the proponents of the theory do, go to their websites, and read their arguments carefully.

"Concensus science" (which is something I've observed only the proponents of this particular theory practice), in effect, tries to treat a given scientific community as though it is a mystical elite which the lowly layman--or for that matter, the independent, non-conforming specialist-- ought dare not to question or challenge.

The validating basis of a scientific theory is a conclusive amount of first-hand, relevant empirical evidence--not the assertion that "there is conclusive evidence"--not the say-so of a scientist or an alleged concensus of scientists--not the assertion that the proponents of the theory are peer-reviewed.

Since you assert that there is such evidence, the burden squarely rests on you to provide it or cite it (showing that the reports of the evidence are reliable).



--Ahmad Hassan

[Edited for content and clarity. -AH]
A former member
Post #: 161
I was thinking about the issue of global warming and whether or not man's action is behind the supposed rise in temperature, when I remembered that there was once an Ice Age, where very thick sheets of ice -- i. e. glaciers -- cover most of Europe and all of Canada and about half-way down the North American continent. This Ice Age lasted for many thousand of years and ended, if I remember correctly, roughly ten thousand years ago. So, obviously the temperature of the earth had to have risen significantly for all of that ice to have melted.

Mankind was not very well off during this time; mostly living in simple huts or caves. However, they did burn wood to keep warm and to cook their food. Which reminded me of the Geico commercial.

Global Warming: So easy a cave man can do it!

[edited a typo]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Philosophic essays based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

www.appliedphilosophyonline.com­

Applied Philosophy Online .com

Where Ideas Are Brought Down to Earth!

tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com

All rights reserved 2006 by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

A former member
Post #: 55
Donovan,

You seem to be missing something about global warming. Perhaps it is because you read only government and environmentalist writings on the subject. I suggest these links as a better source of information:


http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 1998)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 1998)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 1998)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 1999)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 2000)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 2002)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 2002)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 2003)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 2005)

http://capmag.com/art...­ (from 2006)

If you want to know the truth, read all of these articles. There are many more on the capmag.com site, but I selected those I thought were particularly insightful. I also want to include these two sites:

http://www.oism.org/p...­
Over 17,000 scientists who would agree with Rand.

Also go here, the Science and Environmental Policy Project:
http://www.sepp.org/...­
A former member
Post #: 57
I wanted to add this article I just read about Global Warming (it's from 2007). It gave me a laugh, and I agree whole-heartedly with the writer's argument.

http://capmag.com/art...­

At one point in the article, the writer quotes Rand (in the context of technology being viewed as dirty and evil by environmentalists): "Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent 'Thank you' to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestack you can find." I thought this was a typically wonderful statement by Rand.
A former member
Post #: 14
Post retracted
A former member
Post #: 163
[Donavan said]
Who has posted on this topic that has more than basic college science core classes under their belt? Let's just toss out any and all arguments here because no one meets the qualifications to discuss the topic.

I have a degree in physics, does that count? I have a degree in philosophy, does that count?

The solution to a possible nuclear war would have been to destroy the creation sites in the Soviet Union and elsewhere insofar as those nations were enemies of the United States of America. We should have annihilated them right in front of the entire world -- with nuclear weapons -- and told them that if they raise a peep against such justified action, then they would see more of the same.

And we certainly should not be permitting North Korea or Iran to have nuclear capabilities. If they want a nuke, we should give them one -- right down their throats!

As for Global Warming, maybe the average temperature of the earth is rising a bit; but I guess you didn't read my post about the Ice Age that is no more. There have always been fluctuations in the average temperature of the earth; and these fluctuations come about due to various factors, including the make-up of the earth's atmosphere and uneven nuclear reactions in the sun.

Capitalism is life sustaining for man, and Global Warming and Nuclear War are just some of the means of telling man that he is evil by nature. They are trying to terrify you, and every one else, into giving up your life-sustaining capabilities. And for some people, it seems that they have succeeded.

The solution is capitalism, and a recognition of and protection of individual rights.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Philosophic essays based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

www.appliedphilosophyonline.com­

Applied Philosophy Online .com

Where Ideas Are Brought Down to Earth!

tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com

All rights reserved 2006 by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

Powered by mvnForum

Suggested Annual Donation

$10.00 (after 6 event visits)

This covers: Supporting operating expenses and advertising for new members!

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please give any cash or check to any Organizer at an event. We also accept BitCoin: 14sioRkdEBcvvQavE4zbDbSwbsvscPAvF9 Thanks!

Your organizer will refund you if:

  • Each event may have a specific refund policy based on the nature of the event. General donations are not refundable. We may rely on any payment, so if you have any questions please ask an Organizer BEFORE making a payment!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy