[Newfie]

As I've noted before I read The Social Conquest of Earth (Wilson) and "Earth Until Yesterday" (Diamond) in tandem. I had strong leanings toward these ideas and the two books coalesced my ideas.

In short humanity in many was operates on the same tribal levels as we did many thousands of years ago. Sure we have learned some tricks, starting with fire, but our underlying nature is the same. We are rather nasty animals that live in social groups and compete with adjacent groups.

By forming ever larger groups we reduce the amount of tribal warfare and killing and we grow. In short the dominant group assimilates surrounding groups and the tribal organization quashes strife within the group.

We can see remnant of the group structure in inner city gangs, ISIS, Libia, everywhere pretty much.

The frightening bit is that once the central government structure starts to break down these dormant groups reemerge and the old tribal warfare breaks out again.

[dohboi]

So you'd recommend these books? One more than the other?

[Newfie]

My recommendation would be to read Guns, Germs and Steel first.

Then read the other two. If pressed just skim the first half to 2/3 of Wilson to get the theoretical background.

IMHO

[dohboi]

I read GGS a good while back. I'm mostly seeing pretty much more of the same in most things I look at, so haven't bothered with many book length works lately. But if you think Diamond's latest is a must, I may have to pick it up.

[Sixstrings]

Yes, let's try to stay on topic. Start your own Rand or Putin thread if you like, by all means. Just not here.

He did. And I ruined it.

I don't mind thread derails except for the "Ukrainians can't have cars and jobs and mcdonalds and are better off held down by Russia and kept poorest in Europe forever" argument by American Dream.

Dictatorship and human misery, to save the planet. While kiwis and canucks and lefty Americans can sit in a comfy easy chair and read Noam Chomsky, with a nice glass of Pinot Grigio.

I oppose fascism.

And I will oppose eco fascism too, or religious, or any kind. And I don't like eggheads and elitists and pretentious intellectuals like Noam Chomsky professors with their little "America is so bad" books and yet they are BLIND to Putin and China.

And I do like Dorlomin, a lefty with real values and he was able to call a quisling a quisling and stop thinking about Iraq and George Bush for long enough to see what Putin does.

And Dohboi -- Elon Musk is on topic. He's a green industrialist. You can thank him for the gigabatteryplex whatever that is (haven't read about that one), you can thank him for batteries that won't cascade explode under your feet.

You can thank him for an exciting future of space travel, something we've never seen before -- it will be cheap to get into space one day thanks to Elon Musk.

And that could save the human species, that you care about so much and I do too, and when we've eventually branched out across the solar system and beyond then Noam Chomsky will have been wrong, and this is not the end of human history, we're a lot tougher than that.

(our species already survived a climate change episode, and almost went extinct, about 150,000 years ago. It got as low as just a few small isolated bands of homo sapiens left. That's why our DNA isn't all that diverse, we all come from these few survivors. Look it up. )

EDIT: I looked it up for ya,

While it is not fully clear why the populations split in the first place, climate change may have played a role, the researchers say.

"There seems to have been some major climatic events that probably contributed to the separation," said Wells, pointing to evidence that Lake Malawi, in what is now Mozambique, went through a series of severe droughts during that time.

"The population size was driven down to probably as low as 2,000 individuals, perhaps—just a few hundred individuals in each population," Wells added.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct_2.html

Isn't that fascinating?

That climate change wiped our species out and it got down to just 2,000 humans left, in groups of just a few hundred and they were all spread out at that.

And that we are all descended from those 2,000 survivors. So, I remain optimistic -- if we could survive the last big climate change event with nothing more than stone age tech then that means with all our technology now then surely we can survive, as a species, the next climate change event.

[dohboi]

In a no-doubt-fruitless effort to keep the thread somewhere close to an topic, I present the following short video of Chomsky on GW and other topics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCAsxphZoxE

A bit old, now, but still mostly relevant. First five minutes, or so, are the most directly relevant to this threads topic.

[Sixstrings]

In a no-doubt-fruitless effort to keep the thread somewhere close to an topic, I present the following short video of Chomsky on GW and other topics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCAsxphZoxE

A bit old, now, but still mostly relevant. First five minutes, or so, are the most directly relevant to this threads topic.

Well I'll watch it.

I've never seen him on video before he actually seems like a nice fellow. I don't like what he writes, I start seeing anti-Americanism and backstopping Putin and he puts some climate stuff in there too then you guys eat it up.

So far:

He puts meteorologists down as "pretty faces." That's not fair. They spend their lives studying and thinking about and watching climate, and meteorology is a science.

Doing some reading about Chomsky. He's got some "anarchism" in his past:

Born to a middle-class Ashkenazi Jewish family in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from relatives in New York City.

Anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker (left) and English democratic socialist George Orwell (right) were both strong influences on the young Chomsky. Their work convinced him that an anarcho-syndicalist society was both possible and desirable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

The "liberal hoax" thing comes just from what people see as the ENDS to the climate change movement, what it is you guys actually want to do -- cap and trade, and more taxes, and things that are going to help the elites and hurt all of us.

Okay I'm forcing myself to listen to this thing.

But what the hell is a "anarcho-syndicalist society," good lord. Doesn't sound good whatever it is.

I'll watch this thing, and you know, I agree with a lot of what he says but here is the thing. You can't follow any professor like they're gospel. They are just food for thought. They are extreme, not in the middle, not practical and they get a myopic eccentric view about things.

It's the same with "Russian studies" professors CNN has had on, lately. They're all pro-Russia. So what's up with that. These professors just get too far down the rabbithole with their views, and they aren't questioned, they lose objectivity or an ability to argue the other side. I don't trust anyone that can't argue the other side.

Philosophy professors are just like this, whether they're Ayn Rand conservative ones or lefty ones. It's food for thought but you don't elect them to be in charge.

You know, he makes good points but it doesn't really go anywhere it sounds like nihlism to me -- I already know everything he's saying about economics and globalism but I notice he does not argue the other side, there are two sides of the coin there.

If he has an anarchist past then that makes some sense, the nihlism, and I'm honestly concerned lately that this stuff is so prevailing now -- we had anarchism in the late 1800s and early 20th century, maybe it's come back in the form of Noam Chomsky and libertarians. It's a kind of nihlism where you see the whole system as corrupt, but that's really too much black and white thinking and then you're paralyzed and can't respond when there's really some threat out there and there are real values that are at stake.

What can I say, dohboi? We've had these climate discussions over and over. We all know there's no hope of reversing it. It's about China's pollution, and all the greenhouse gas already in the pipeline anyway.

We all know there's no such thing as "green" exponential growth, it's an oxymoron.

Some of you guys offer up fascism as an answer, just oppress people and keep them poor and miserable, and that's better for the planet. That's all some dark philosophy to me, sorry.

And neither will I ever vote for something that just uses your movement to enrich banksters -- cap and trade.

Neither will I vote for a regressive carbon tax on myself, when it will never reverse climate change.

I'm for clean air and clean water so fine how about just focusing on that? And forget about cap and trade and carbon taxes? Just do some more Nixon-style EPA regulation, it's not rocket science. Do it gradually so business can adapt. Same thing we've always done, and cars get ever better on emissions and gasoline gets cleaner and now we're off into EVs.

If this movement could stop tying anti-Americanism to their climate views, then I can get on board. If they can find something to say about Russia and China, then I can get on board. If they can start sticking to old fashioned practical environmentalism, and no more "the world has ended it's so sad" threads, then I can get on board with that.

And I still think it's unclear about solar cycles, and their impact on the climate and what is really going on but that's ok -- I'm still for cleaner air, so what's the problem.

[dohboi]

Thanks for watching.

"He puts meteorologists down as "pretty faces." That's not fair."

He's talking about TV meteorologist--'the weather man/women'

They are more often chosen for their looks and personality than for their academic acumen. There are indeed some wonderful exceptions. The main point is that going to meteorologists for opinions on climate is like going to your dental hygienist for opinions on evolution. Sure, they may have some, but they are not particularly more informed on that particular subject than your average Joe.

Of course, if you think that TV personalities and other representatives of the MSM are the most reliable places to turn for honest assessments of the most important issues of our times...well, we are just not likely to agree on much then, are we.

Soooo, you admit that you have no glimmering idea what anarcho-syndicalism is, but you are sure that it is something terrible and nasty, presumably because it is associated with Chomsky. This level of illogic and willful ignorance is beyond what I can bother with.

(For those interested in the essentials, here's what a quick glance at wiki yields: "Anarcho-syndicalists view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property, and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, denying most of its denizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

That sounds like something most thoughtful--if there are any--Tea Partiers should be able to appreciate. But no, let's just have a knee-jerk reaction to something we have no idea about because our handlers have trained us very well to distrust anything they haven't spoonfed to us, shall we?)

[Subjectivist]

History does not end, even if humanity ends ten minutes from now. History goes on eternally, just like God, because as long as there is intelligence anywhere there is history.

[dohboi]

"because as long as there is intelligence anywhere there is history"

Sooo, not much history going on in these threads, huh?

[PrestonSturges]

Six has already burned the better part of an hour on his obsessive hatred of Chomsky, and I suspect that's only the tip of the iceberg. I'm guessing a good part of his last decade has been lost ranting about obscure academics and C-list celebrities.

[Sixstrings]

He's talking about TV meteorologist--'the weather man/women'

They are more often chosen for their looks and personality than for their academic acumen. There are indeed some wonderful exceptions.

Well okay Mr. Science ( ), where is your data to back up such a broad sweeping generalization?

My local meteorologist has been in the business 40 years. Studying nothing but the weather, and climate, that whole time.

It is a logical fallacy to dismiss a meteorologist's opinion just because of his education and occupation -- let's say, just for example, that you trade forex candlesticks for a living. Perhaps a bachelors degree in English lit, who knows, does that disqualify you from forming an opinion about climate change?

If anything, a meteorologist is more qualified than those from other fields, to take in this information and form a conclusion. And your video is old and it's 2014 and it's not like all meteorologists deny climate change anymore.

But more to the point -- when Chomsky puts down meteorologists, who actually get undergrad and graduate degrees in that science, as "pretty faces" -- then what does he and his movement think of average folks' ability to hear both sides and form a conclusion?

I imagine you think we're all unqualified. All us voters are just "pretty faces" and we need an eco-fascist State to tell us what to do.

Well it doesn't work that way. This is a democracy.

And elitism, and talking down to people, is hardly going to persuade people to your side. You're all just talking amongst yourselves and to your base. For my part -- I'm not sure -- I still wonder about the solar cycles. NASA is studying that right now and will be more in the future, I don't guess either of us will still be around on this forum ten years from now for me to get an apology if I turn out right.

I have pretty damn good intuition -- those solar cycles are a part of the climate change story. But I'm for clean air anyway so okay pass tighter emissions standards but don't come to me with a regressive carbon tax that's going to hurt me and help elites, or cap and trade to enrich banksters on the back of your emotion about the environment. With all due respect.

Soooo, you admit that you have no glimmering idea what anarcho-syndicalism is, but you are sure that it is something terrible and nasty, presumably because it is associated with Chomsky.

Well, I dunno doh, "anarcho-syndicalism" sounds like it was cooked up by some anarchist. No I do not know what that is, but yes it doesn't sound good. Ok I'll look it up, be right back.

I'm back. Ok, here's what I found:

Anarcho-syndicalism




The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are solidarity, direct action (action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. The end goal of anarcho-syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labour movement.[2]

Anarcho-syndicalists view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property, and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, denying most of its denizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it.[3]

In contrast with other bodies of thought, particularly with Marxism–Leninism, anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful, and that any state with the intention of empowering the workers will inevitably work to empower itself or the existing elite at the expense of the workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Good lord, what a bunch of word salad nonsense. There's a good 20 pages on that wiki and it's all like that and there's never a conclusion as to wtf "anarcho-syndicalism" is or wtf their policy ideas are, exactly.

So they are against "private property," yet they aren't communist either, because communism just empowers the state.

Dohboi -- it sounds like anarchist nihlist chaos nonsense to me, and I'm sorry but if Noam Chomsky is deeply rooted in this stuff, then that certainly explains why I keep getting a nihlist vibe about him. And then so many of you, and on the Left, are so influenced by him.

If you can explain this anarcho-syndicatism thing to me better then please do. Shouldn't be rocket science to kind of explain something in a sentence or two.

(For those interested in the essentials, here's what a quick glance at wiki yields: "Anarcho-syndicalists view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property, and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, denying most of its denizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Lol, you had to go to wiki too, ok. Well, since you know about it could you explain it better than the wiki article?

It's all just word salad. Just that the state supports private property, so I guess anarchists would like to just burn it all down and trip on some shrooms at Burning Man?

That doesn't even work, at Burning Man. People have tried the "gift economy" thing but then hippies just show up without any food or water.

[dohboi]

I encourage my students to go to wiki as a first step to get an initial overview of the subject. But then, I urge them to look further into things they are interested by going to primary sources and scholarly journals, even though these may be more challenging to read.

But if even a general encyclopedia entry is beyond your reading level comprehension, I just can't help you much.

Sorry.

I really am sorry that our educational system let you down so badly, man. Best of luck. I would only suggest trying to reflect on how you might have been influenced to reject ideas before you understand them. Whose interests does that serve?

[onlooker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRbnPA3fd5U
Interesting interview with someone who has been outspoken in his anti-west views Mr Chomsky. Interesting how he is well updated on the seriousness of Global Warming and Environment, I would have thought that is something he may have not researched too much at his age. Also, I found it humorous is use of "so called intelligence" in reference to us humans. Again never pull punches in terms of singling out US and Israel as aggressive and belligerent nations. Finally, he curiously sees Latin America as having sort of separated itself from US. Oh and cites Europe's involvement in Extraordinary Rendition during the Neocon reign. All and all I find him one of the most credible and outspoken persons even though he is based in US, guess his tenured position has allowed him some flexibility. Finally, he describes a US drone assassination global campaign which is probably an accurate way of putting it.

[onlooker]

By the way for those who may question the drone assassination program. Here is link from ACLU
https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-se ... ed-killing

[Sixstrings]

That man's anti-American, and un-American.

He calls USA and Israel "the two biggest rogue states in the world."

Kind of chilling, to see a man THAT AGE, sitting there saying that. An American. My goodness. Leftist professor, well, there ya go.. folks.. people that speak in absolutes are not wise. Nothing is black and white and so simple. There's just something wrong with this man's thinking, how can he sit there and say that about his own country but he's somehow got nothing to say about thousands of real horrors all over this globe.

The fact is that most nations in the world are pretty brutual places, compared to the USA and West.

I guess Chomsky has nothing to say about China, or Russia, or political prisoners / captive prison population in the nation of Cuba. People go on about Guantanomo all the time, yet the same people have nothing to say about the Cubans that aren't allowed to leave the island either -- because of the Castro brothers. Because that's communism, they have to put a wall up and guards or else people would like to get the heck out if they can.

Chomsky is sharp and looks good for 86, that's for sure, but there's something wrong with an American that can sit there talking about his country that way, calling it "the biggest rogue state in the world." And Israel, too. He's got nothing to say about Iran. He's just so one sided, just so anti-American, it's not even honest critical thinking.

How can someone be 86, and not any more wise than that. He's clearly still sharp. it's not senility. I guess he's always been talking that way. "Self-proclaimed anarchsit," and such, well whatever.

Look -- at least I'm balanced, I don't sit there calling Iran or Rusia or China the biggest rogue states in the world. Nothing is black and white. It's GRAY. With somethings being whiter, and BETTER, than others, but it's not simple. If you wanted to make a list of the most brutal regimes, where people suffer the most, where it's most brutal -- then objectively that's North Korea at the top.

And then below that you'd have places like how Burma used to be, though that's better now, but there's hundreds of little countries that are really awful brutal places. And even Pakistan, that's pretty rough. And Afghanistan. Jesus, look at Mexico and the cartels, look at all of South America and how much of a horrible mess they have that's been going on forever.

And then Africa -- tyranny and horrors all over the place, on that continent.

USA, UK, Europe, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada -- these are the some of the BEST places in the world. Where there is the most freedom, the most decency.

Noam Chomsky is wrong.

And I really dislike how it's all wrapped up in an nice package with a bow, ENVIRONMENTALISM along with RABID ANTI-AMERICANISM. It's a bunch of crap, it's not right. You wind up with people just parroting Noam Chomsky, as if one must hate America to love a tree.

Meanwhile NOBODY has NOTHIN to say about Chinese that are killing all the rhinos, to utter extinction, all for the horn trade and their traditional chinese medicine. Those horns, ground up, are worth more than narcotics. China builds air bases on top of coral reefs. China has horrific pollution, and plans to exponentially grow using coal fired plants. China is pushing the world over the climate edge, already the #1 polluter for a few years now -- well guess what that's gonna exponentially double and double in the future.

Not that Noam Chomsky has anything to say about that, rigtht? About China, or anyone else, right? It's just all America.. mmmhm..

[Keith_McClary]

captive prison population in the nation of Cuba. People go on about Guantanomo all the time, yet the same people have nothing to say about the Cubans that aren't allowed to leave the island either -- because of the Castro brothers. Because that's communism, they have to put a wall up and guards or else people would like to get the heck out if they can.

Is this based on your personal knowledge - have you taken the short trip from Florida to Cuba to see for yourself? If not, why not?

[kanon]

That man's anti-American, and un-American.

He calls USA and Israel "the two biggest rogue states in the world."

Look -- at least I'm balanced, I don't sit there calling Iran or Rusia or China the biggest rogue states in the world. Nothing is black and white. It's GRAY. With somethings being whiter, and BETTER, than others, but it's not simple. If you wanted to make a list of the most brutal regimes, where people suffer the most, where it's most brutal -- then objectively that's North Korea at the top.

You are not balanced. You will never understand what a chump you are. You know nothing about North Korea except the propaganda. I don't know anything about North Korea either, but I do know there is a constant, relentless propaganda stream devoted to sustaining the same BS you spout. I also know that NK has been under an economic embargo since the Korean War, and that rapprochement between North and South Korea was rejected by your hero, GWB (rather his superiors -- the same ones who direct BO). The inference is that NK, in its present state, serves someone's purpose.

Never mind. It is a waste of time responding to your stupidity.

[onlooker]

I am glad always to hear those who can discern the true reality of things. It has not been that easy actually I have had to sift through much information, use critical thinking about judging validity of source info, and it has taken me quite some time to arrive at some of the conclusions I have about US role in the world since WWII. Yet I encourage especially Americans too do some research , it is worth it at the end because you get a sense of freedom from knowing the truth. "The truth shall set you free" Plus I just like to satisfy my curiosity haha

[Sixstrings]

Well I have a right to my opinion, too.

I'm just saying:

* No, America is not "the biggest rogue in the world."

* You must realize Chomksy is a professor. He's the type that is not meant to be balanced, and truly critical thinking, nor the type that could ever be in charge of anything. He's got one view, and that's that we are the worst there is, and if you do just swallow all his thinking and go along with that and lay down to Beijing and Moscow then what you would find out is the new world hegemon would not somehow be more lefty, more planet loving, more human rights loving, than what we are.

* Someone like Chomksy is like a lot of professors you may have had back in college. They are good for provoking thought, but it's not good to swallow it all as it's spooned out.

I remember my professors back in college. Many of them were like that aa well. I had a philosophy professor that was all "ayn rand" type. I knew even back then he was too extreme (too libertarian) and that's not where truth lies, but otherwise he was one of the most fascinating people I've ever encountered and I did learn quite a bit.

Truth is not in extremes. There is no black and white, when you're talking about entire cultures and nations and ideologies, only gray. But then it's also the case that some things are more white than others, on balance, and some things more wrong.

When Chomsky says the USA is the biggest rogue in the world, what precisely is he saying we are rogue about? What are Chomsky's values, then? Do they align with Russia, China, Iran? Is Chomksy not for the West and democracy? If that's one's view then yup, we are definitely rogue and in opposition to what's on the other side. That other side is not all bad, again no black and white, but our way is better.

If your concern is the planet -- then get real, China is the #1 polluter, they use all coal fired plants, they DO NOT CARE about the planet because THEY DON'T EVEN CARE about people and human rights, like we do, either. See those all go hand in hand.

You won't get a green utopia with communist parties and dictatorships taking the lead in the world, I'm sorry.

Chomsky's just not being intellectually honest. Why does he have nothing to say about China's plan to grow so much and it's all going to be on coal and other heavy pollution.

edit: I wrote some more, to address onlooker's other points and get more on topic with the thread, then I hit the wrong button and lost it all.

Long story short: about rendition, if he's talking about the secret CIA prison that was in Poland and such then yes that was wrong.

But also: just every day prison conditions in most prisons on this planet is a lot worse than any CIA secret prison. The world is actually a pretty rough, brutal place.

BUT -- when we lose our own values, in defending them, then the enemy wins anyway. So that's the important point, and yes those secret prisons in the Bush years were wrong. Muslim terrorism is wrong too, and a top threat to all of us in the West, but we just do not want to lose our values in fighting that. Losing credibility, respect, and losing moral highground and moral leadership, is just as dangerous to our national security.

(so see, I actually agree with Chomsky on a LOT of things but -- you won't ever see me saying America is the world's biggest rogue, because that is NOT TRUE, it's just not, Jesus. Give me a break. World is full of a lot of really awful, horrific regimes and guess what we are actually not even one of those much less the worst of them.

There is ANOTHER way to frame the Chomsky argument -- that speaks to what our values actually are, what America is about, and that is doing the right thing and civil rights and democracy. Whereas Chomsky just tears it ALL down, folks look the man is ANARCHIST in philosophy, for goodness sake.

That really gets me going, how crazy is that, how can someone just be a "tear it all down" anarchist. If anarchists ever win out THEN GUESS WHAT YOU GET OUT OF THAT -- YOU GET ANARCHY!

When anarchy reigns, there is not enough stability for there to even be an MIT that can have a leftist professor to be an anarchist, in the first place.

P.S. But I do just want to say that Noam Chomsky, and Noam Chomsky political types, have a role to play in our democracy because you actually are the only ones that will talk so much about certain issues like CIA secret prisons.

And our crazy far right has a role to play, too. It's the cassandras of our democracy. To speak up and make the middle aware of some stuff. Political fringes have a role to play (short of calling our home and nation the worst rogue in the world, give me a flippin' break good grief), but political extremists can never be all in charge, that would be no good either and in fact be a lot worse. It's like with Russia, their whole duma got taken over by their version of a "tea party" and they went and annexed Crimea and they pass all kinds of crazy domestic laws, just as our own tea party would if they ever got majority in congress.)