"Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past."
Yes, but putting faith in technology to bail us out of our present difficulties with climate change and resource scarcity also imperils our future. Seems that people are always thinking that rather than change our own behavior (reduce our carbon footprint, have fewer children, conservation efforts) Science will always come along and provide a way so that we can continue to live thoughtless, indulgent lives.
Wonderful article though. Likely resource wars are looming -- it's time to start having intelligent conversations in advance of catastrophe.
Yes, but putting faith in technology to bail us out of our present difficulties with climate change and resource scarcity also imperils our future. Seems that people are always thinking that rather than change our own behavior (reduce our carbon footprint, have fewer children, conservation efforts) Science will always come along and provide a way so that we can continue to live thoughtless, indulgent lives.
Wonderful article though. Likely resource wars are looming -- it's time to start having intelligent conversations in advance of catastrophe.
11
Don't squeeze the multifaceted hatred, xenophobia, paranoia, and the antisemitic European history that enabled the Holocaust into one convenient detail of Hitler's ravings in order to promote a particular agenda.
Don't do it under the guise of preventing the next Holocaust. Don't do it it under any guise at all. It's offensive. It minimizes the causes of the Holocaust and minimizes the lessons that can be learned for the future. It minimizes the millions of children who died, not because they were eating potentially German food, but simply because they were Jewish. Because their very essence was a threat to the guilt-free notion of a German superman dominating the earth.
If Hitler would have had every piece of land and food on earth to start with he still would have pursued his agenda of killing every Jew.
He made that immensely clear. He wanted to crush the Jewish spirit. The anti-Darwinian notion that the weak should be protected by the strong- instead of used, or crushed by them. The Jewish notions that ethics, conscience, mercy, instead of bruit strength should govern our actions and societies. Not just in ecology, but in every facet of life.
In fact, quite the opposite of what this author claims, it was a total embrace of science in it's coldest most mathematical form over human kindness and emotion that was his justification for mass murder. An extreme interpretation of "survival of the fittest."
Don't do it under the guise of preventing the next Holocaust. Don't do it it under any guise at all. It's offensive. It minimizes the causes of the Holocaust and minimizes the lessons that can be learned for the future. It minimizes the millions of children who died, not because they were eating potentially German food, but simply because they were Jewish. Because their very essence was a threat to the guilt-free notion of a German superman dominating the earth.
If Hitler would have had every piece of land and food on earth to start with he still would have pursued his agenda of killing every Jew.
He made that immensely clear. He wanted to crush the Jewish spirit. The anti-Darwinian notion that the weak should be protected by the strong- instead of used, or crushed by them. The Jewish notions that ethics, conscience, mercy, instead of bruit strength should govern our actions and societies. Not just in ecology, but in every facet of life.
In fact, quite the opposite of what this author claims, it was a total embrace of science in it's coldest most mathematical form over human kindness and emotion that was his justification for mass murder. An extreme interpretation of "survival of the fittest."
46
When one approaches the Mediterranean coast of Israel from the air, the vista is green. Off to the right is Jordan and the desert.....indistinguishable, one from the other. Fly over any other countries in the region, and,there is, also, no green. I don't buy the " parched" middle-east statement. The weather did not create radical Islam. The influx of refugees to europe will surely exacerbate a myriad of already worsening natural and man-made problems. Climate change, while a dire calamity, will pale when the displaced do not assimilate, and start falling for the hot rhetoric of the store-front preachers.These days, my Liberal soul is sorely being challenged.
33
The author writes that "By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic...". That's true, but it's carefully put in the past tense. We cannot change the past. At present, though, the US, for all its denialist talk in some quarters, has reduced its carbon emissions. The People's Republic of China, for all its commendable efforts with solar energy, has greatly increased its own carbon footprint, and is now by a wide margin the leading emitter of greenhouse gases.
If we are to limit and contain the harm coming our way from climate change, we shall have to be clear eyed and frank about every aspect of the problem. We're all at risk. Since the future must come, it is in the Chinese national interest to slow the construction of new coal-fired power plants, to embrace every efficiency technology now in use in the US and not yet in China, and to speed the construction of wind, solar, and even nuclear energy facilities to make up for the shortage of power from coal-fired plants. We should help each other, and other powers, to speed this transition where we have useful know-how to share.
Both nations have to know that the other will do its part, for otherwise, the risk is that each will hold back from expensive efforts out of a sense that they would be fruitless because the other would simply take advantage and use more coal.
If we are to limit and contain the harm coming our way from climate change, we shall have to be clear eyed and frank about every aspect of the problem. We're all at risk. Since the future must come, it is in the Chinese national interest to slow the construction of new coal-fired power plants, to embrace every efficiency technology now in use in the US and not yet in China, and to speed the construction of wind, solar, and even nuclear energy facilities to make up for the shortage of power from coal-fired plants. We should help each other, and other powers, to speed this transition where we have useful know-how to share.
Both nations have to know that the other will do its part, for otherwise, the risk is that each will hold back from expensive efforts out of a sense that they would be fruitless because the other would simply take advantage and use more coal.
10
A thought-provoking piece. All of us need to collectively prevent the emergence of emotionally provocative aggressiveness, from 'ecological-panic' triggered by shortages of food or water.
And how may we do that? By understanding that if the whole living world - with its people, plants and animals - has to have food and water to live with dignity, then all humans have to cut back on demanding more and more 'stuff' and widgets: the kind of goods that need large quantities of water, energy, and natural resources to produce and be made available to us.
Without each one of us changing our consciousness, and focusing on those precious things that are truly life-affirming and valuable to us, we are headed for yet another disaster.
And how may we do that? By understanding that if the whole living world - with its people, plants and animals - has to have food and water to live with dignity, then all humans have to cut back on demanding more and more 'stuff' and widgets: the kind of goods that need large quantities of water, energy, and natural resources to produce and be made available to us.
Without each one of us changing our consciousness, and focusing on those precious things that are truly life-affirming and valuable to us, we are headed for yet another disaster.
23
Hitler did not kill 6 million Jews because he believed he needed more land and food - he wanted to exterminate every Jew in this world because he was an anti-semite. The Holocaust isn't a distant horror - for just last week we heard Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who happens to be Pres O'bama's newest ally, say in during a speech that Israel would be exterminated within the next 25 years. Iran isn't an imagined enemy - he isn't anxious about feeding his country's population - he wants to destroy all Jews. There's not much of left of the American spirit we grew up to cherish, thanks to a U.S. government that is intent on squashing the freedoms which spawned the unique ideas and actions of many Jews.
Despite what my emotional side says to me, my cerebral side tells me that the over 5000 year Jewish experiment trumps the 239 year old American one, from here on in.
Despite what my emotional side says to me, my cerebral side tells me that the over 5000 year Jewish experiment trumps the 239 year old American one, from here on in.
32
Life Boat Earth
yes things are tough, but why focus on losers like Adolf and not on winners like Churchill, Roosevelt, and Ike?
We are going to make it, but survival may be messy.
"In victory magnaminity."
Keep the faith.
yes things are tough, but why focus on losers like Adolf and not on winners like Churchill, Roosevelt, and Ike?
We are going to make it, but survival may be messy.
"In victory magnaminity."
Keep the faith.
9
Belief that science can eventually solve problems or at least keep us one step ahead of catastrophe reflects, at its base, an optimistic view of the future. Belief in iron laws of Nature or History (thereby capturing both Nazi, Communist and similar chiliastic ideologies) that all life is a struggle in a zero-sum game reflects a pessimistic view.
Nothing is foreordained, so we can never know how our story will end. Prof. Snyder's brief piece provides a thoughtful warning and a call to action. As it has often proved to be the case in recent history, the problem of food production is rarely an absolute lack but often a failure in distribution. There are many reasons, including market issues, concern over inadvertent destruction of local markets, corruption and outright waste at every point in the food pipeline. If some international mechanism could be constructed to smooth over the distribution problem (to the extent possible) such a system might even justify the current hodge-lodge of national agricultural price support systems. If there is to be an accepted economic "distortion" in our markets, let's at least put it to use for international good
Nothing is foreordained, so we can never know how our story will end. Prof. Snyder's brief piece provides a thoughtful warning and a call to action. As it has often proved to be the case in recent history, the problem of food production is rarely an absolute lack but often a failure in distribution. There are many reasons, including market issues, concern over inadvertent destruction of local markets, corruption and outright waste at every point in the food pipeline. If some international mechanism could be constructed to smooth over the distribution problem (to the extent possible) such a system might even justify the current hodge-lodge of national agricultural price support systems. If there is to be an accepted economic "distortion" in our markets, let's at least put it to use for international good
6
It is difficult to understand those who are actively advocating some sort intervention on behalf of climate change, yet by large this group is opposing military build up and aggressive action against the worst polluters . What are we to do against China or the profit driven multinationals who influence the political process in their favor? War of ideas? We have the most progressive President ever, self proclaimed environmentalist , yet he supports trade agreement which could have catastrophic impact on climate change. TPP allows coorporations to sue the government for interfering with their practices.
Do we have economic alternatives for those whose livelihood depends on slash and burn farming? Hungry people are worry about today, not the far away future. Most of the abuses of natural resources are driven by survival and profit related matters. Lets crawl before we walk.To compare climate change issues to the Holocaust is not only offensive but counter productive.
www.isonewsinfo.com
Do we have economic alternatives for those whose livelihood depends on slash and burn farming? Hungry people are worry about today, not the far away future. Most of the abuses of natural resources are driven by survival and profit related matters. Lets crawl before we walk.To compare climate change issues to the Holocaust is not only offensive but counter productive.
www.isonewsinfo.com
6
When discussing Hitler and Germany, this article is laughable. It completely ignores (1) the huge resentment Germans felt toward the terms of the Versailles peace treaty, (2) the fear many Germans felt toward the Socialists and Communists in their midst, especially with a murderous Soviet Union a few miles to the east, (3) the suffering caused by a world-wide depression, and (4) the grossly and unscientifically distorted interpretation of the theory of evolution known as Social Darwinism. The statement about Hitler spreading ecological panic is questionable.
Supposed ecological panic certainly does not explain the Nazi hatred of Jews. The latter is much more a result of Hitler blaming Germany's loss of WWI on civilians in the cities, many of whom were Jews, spreading defeatist propaganda. He preferred to blame them rather than the military leaders who persuaded Wilhelm II to start the war.
However, I have no objection to the main point of the article, which is that American politicians, especially Republicans, are so utterly indifferent to science. A moderate Republican myself (formerly a liberal Democrat), I am constantly appalled and disgusted with the leaders and members of my party, many of whom disbelieve the theory of evolution through natural selection and accept the Bible as the literal word of God (even though Matthew 1 -Jesus descended from David through Solomon- conflicts with Luke 3 - descended from David through Nathan).
Supposed ecological panic certainly does not explain the Nazi hatred of Jews. The latter is much more a result of Hitler blaming Germany's loss of WWI on civilians in the cities, many of whom were Jews, spreading defeatist propaganda. He preferred to blame them rather than the military leaders who persuaded Wilhelm II to start the war.
However, I have no objection to the main point of the article, which is that American politicians, especially Republicans, are so utterly indifferent to science. A moderate Republican myself (formerly a liberal Democrat), I am constantly appalled and disgusted with the leaders and members of my party, many of whom disbelieve the theory of evolution through natural selection and accept the Bible as the literal word of God (even though Matthew 1 -Jesus descended from David through Solomon- conflicts with Luke 3 - descended from David through Nathan).
57
Rather than looking abroad for the seeds of genocide, lets look first at our own country. Desperation about financial woes often leads to thoughts of sacrificing one part of the population for another--and our country is no exception. Recent trends in the media--and sadly, the liberal media--have begun to emphasize the burdens that aged members of our population impose on heath care and other costs. Essays and editorials which would have been rejected as ageist 20 years ago now abound about the horrors of aging and the need for advance directives focused on medical nonintervention. This trend coincides directly with awareness of the rising cost of health care in our country. Taken along with proposals to allow assisted suicide for people with clinical depression and essays by prominent physicians about the value of limiting life to 75 years, this phenomenon begs the question: how long will it be before euthanasia becomes a tacit solution to "cleanse" our society of those members of our population-- the seriously ill and the aged-- who are perceived as a financial drain to our society?
12
Unfortunately, science and technology will reach the point of diminishing returns on productivity - and we all have to face the fact that the Earth DOES have limited resources. Clean water being the main scarce resource.
To avoid a future wrought with wars over food, water and energy, we need to start implementing populations controls across the world. China was first to recognize these issues with their "one child rule". The rest of the developing world should follow suit. Countries like India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand are showing explosive, unsustainable growth rates.
I too am a believer in science and its ability to solve problems, but unless we can get world population growth under control, the science won't matter.
To avoid a future wrought with wars over food, water and energy, we need to start implementing populations controls across the world. China was first to recognize these issues with their "one child rule". The rest of the developing world should follow suit. Countries like India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand are showing explosive, unsustainable growth rates.
I too am a believer in science and its ability to solve problems, but unless we can get world population growth under control, the science won't matter.
22
China, of course, is expanding its influence through acquisition of land in Africa, Ukraine and other places. It is undoubtedly worried about food supply. But come on... equating this to Hitler's actions is a nonsense to say the least.
7
If you have not done so before, I strongly urge you to Google and read "The Danger of Facism In America", a New York Times article written by Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President.
Although written in 1946, you will swear you are reading about today's Republican Party and its propaganda branch, FOX News.
The parallels between the way the Nazis took over Germany by appealing to the racism and xenophobia and vanity of the people and they way the Republican Party is trying to take over America using the same ideologies gro more eerie and scary with every passing week, with the ascendancy of Donald Trump as a clear symptom.
Although written in 1946, you will swear you are reading about today's Republican Party and its propaganda branch, FOX News.
The parallels between the way the Nazis took over Germany by appealing to the racism and xenophobia and vanity of the people and they way the Republican Party is trying to take over America using the same ideologies gro more eerie and scary with every passing week, with the ascendancy of Donald Trump as a clear symptom.
22
It is a stretch to link Hitler's program to ecology and food security. Hitler thought of safety as coming from more land, in much the Russian way: control of buffer land to provide military defense in depth and not allow hostile powers on Germany's borders. HItler, like Putin, appealed to a nationalist sense that those who are ethnically German and who speak German (or Russian) need to be re-united with their brethren. Another parallel to Putin is the appeal to revive German (or Russian) pride following the loss of WWI (or Cold War) and the stripping of territory in defeat. In the case of Germany, there was rebellion against reparations and the Versailles treaty and the later Washington Treaty, which denied Germany the same capital warships that the great powers had. This is echoed in Putin's words that the US and the west want to humiliate Russia and keep it weak, by sanctions and other means, such as encouragement of the western-Ukraine revolt and overthrow of the sort-of-elected pro-Russian government, followed immediately by anti-Russian language laws in Ukraine.
Hitler's anti-Semitism is more of a piece with traditional Christian anti-Semitism, coupled with the view in the old-Confederate states in the U.S. that inter-marriage would destroy the pure genetic pool and that Jewish intellectuals tainted German culture. This is the xenophobic fight against 'illegal immigrants' in America and Europe -- pure culture, genetic purity, jobs for traditional citizens.
Hitler's anti-Semitism is more of a piece with traditional Christian anti-Semitism, coupled with the view in the old-Confederate states in the U.S. that inter-marriage would destroy the pure genetic pool and that Jewish intellectuals tainted German culture. This is the xenophobic fight against 'illegal immigrants' in America and Europe -- pure culture, genetic purity, jobs for traditional citizens.
16
Now the history professors are linking climate change to the Holocaust. Hitler didn't kill the Jews solely because of lebenstraum- the two evil ideas he had were unfortunately mutually exclusive in other historians view of Nazi Germany. this point I will leave to the historians to debate. There are many more inaccuracies in this article including blaming the US for pollution/carbon emissions when China and India, by far the greatest hydrocarbon and pollution producers are off the global hook. Overpopulation is the real culprit here. There has always been a race between the population of the earth and food supplies. Technology has always easily caught up. Science is not even sure how carbon dioxide affects the climate. Science is sure that great climatic fluctuations have occurred throughout our history, and the theory is that this is due to the earth wobbling on its axis. That said, research and money should be focusing on reducing man made pollution of the atmosphere and water supplies so that more food can be grown -- rather than carbon emissions. Work also should be done on creating clean fresh water; we will likely run out of that before anything. We know for sure that these are problems and how they affect food and people; and it is disconcerting to see real money chasing problems we are not even sure exist instead of spending it on real known problems we do have. This is my biggest issue with the climate change debate and history professors who are not scientists.
10
“The full consequences of climate change may reach America only decades after warming wreaks havoc in other regions.”
The utter conceit!
Do you not realise it is hitting America right now! Do you think those ‘one in a hundred year’ events that are happening with increasing regularity normal?
Do you think that because it is America it will not be so bad?
When it really gets going, when the Artic Vortex changes pattern, when the El-Nino is up and running, you will see how ‘benevolent nature is.
We are in a very precarious situation. We have thrown natural selection out of the window. We have polluted the land, ocean and air. We have given nature a new phenomenon to come to terms with. We perceive we are the gods, masters of the planet and can put it all back together with our superior science and technology Geo-engineering. All that will do is give nature the appetite to dispose of our irksome little species a little faster as it compensates itself to this new phenomenon of anthropogenic hedonism which is damaging the planet.
That compensation of nature, that adjustment, will be very costly to the human race, its environment, and the long term hopes for its future. And when it happens you will truly see the ‘compassion’ of Mother Nature! You will also see the ‘compassion’ in the human species for the survival of the fittest!
www.cugerbrant.info
The utter conceit!
Do you not realise it is hitting America right now! Do you think those ‘one in a hundred year’ events that are happening with increasing regularity normal?
Do you think that because it is America it will not be so bad?
When it really gets going, when the Artic Vortex changes pattern, when the El-Nino is up and running, you will see how ‘benevolent nature is.
We are in a very precarious situation. We have thrown natural selection out of the window. We have polluted the land, ocean and air. We have given nature a new phenomenon to come to terms with. We perceive we are the gods, masters of the planet and can put it all back together with our superior science and technology Geo-engineering. All that will do is give nature the appetite to dispose of our irksome little species a little faster as it compensates itself to this new phenomenon of anthropogenic hedonism which is damaging the planet.
That compensation of nature, that adjustment, will be very costly to the human race, its environment, and the long term hopes for its future. And when it happens you will truly see the ‘compassion’ of Mother Nature! You will also see the ‘compassion’ in the human species for the survival of the fittest!
www.cugerbrant.info
3
Hitler like Science when it could give him weapons. It was Engineering more than Science that interested Hitler. When Werner Heisenberg met with Hitler and told him that kicking all the Jews out of Germany was crippling Physics. Hitler replied "we will have to do without Physics for a while". Hitler was not a friend of Biological Science except in so far as it supported his racial theories and it is a fact that much of racial "Science" came from Southern Universities in the United States where the South was bound and determined to prove to the world that Africans and their descendants were only fit for slavery. That they had been right about them all along. I came across an illustrated book published by one of these institutions in a library in Southern Utah in the 1960s when the Mormons still considered blacks the sons of Ham, the despised son of Noah. In this book, there were pictures of blacks, naked from the waist up, with comments like "a perfect example of a muscle-bound Negro who cannot play our modern sports." The book had been published in the 1930s or 1940s and was in excellent condition. This is what Serena still faces.
Both Hitler and Stalin hated Evolution and Relativity and called, especially,
Relativity "Jewish Science". They were in the ultimate Cherry Pickers in the fields of Science. What flattered their prejudices, they backed, what didn't they destroyed. More than one Agronomist was sent to the Gulag by Stalin for supporting hybrid crops.
Both Hitler and Stalin hated Evolution and Relativity and called, especially,
Relativity "Jewish Science". They were in the ultimate Cherry Pickers in the fields of Science. What flattered their prejudices, they backed, what didn't they destroyed. More than one Agronomist was sent to the Gulag by Stalin for supporting hybrid crops.
10
But no mention of the fact that Monsanto and Dupont have bought up millions acres of UKraine farmland, necessitating the overthrow of the Government there to secure their investments.. Nor any mention of the US role in first destabilizing and then it`s hand in overthrowing the elected government of the Ukraine for the Interests of these companies and Joe Biden`s son.. Never mind the destabilizing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia and the dozen or so other wars that the US has instigated for geopolitical purposes in the last 15 years alone. ( To secure resources) And does anyone forget America`s backyard, Latin America and Manifest Destiny? No mention of those trivial instances in history either. All for control of other nations land, resourses and farmland. Genocide? Just an incident along the way. As Madeline Albright said about the starvation deaths of 500,000 kids in Iraq as a result of US sanctions when asked if she felt it was worth it. She said "yes that the US felt it was worth it." ( The deaths of 500,000 innocent children was worth it for what? To control iraq`s oil fields for EXXON and Royal Dutch schell?)I suppose Hitler had no problem rationalizing the slaughter of the Jews in some similar way. US writers should stop critisizing Hitler it is a little rich to say the least. And China and Russia? Their militaries are behind their own borders, can`t say the same for the American military, they are in what, 160 different countries?
14
"Conflating lifestyle with life" is so prevalent in Americans' perspectives that the confusion is unrecognizable to most people. Most Americans make a false choice between "affordable products" and cheap, exploitive and even slave labor, ignoring the disproportionate profits of corporations because in our "self-made, rugged individualist" mythos profit is the sacred cow whose sacrifice cannot be debated. Uber and other instant-service, "sharing economy" practices are emblematic of this disassociation; "why pay a unionized or fully-employed, legally protected person more when I can get it cheap?" without considering the humans on the other side of that choice. But Uber is "hipster," brought to us by like-minded techno hipsters who understand the "need" to be instantly, thoughtlessly gratified--becasuse we're too busy to wait.
Yes, we exploit resources and the idea of infinite resources--how many people still brush their teeth and shave with the water running?--but we also exploit fellow humans to the point of dehumanization. How many people have said or heard from friends the "pro-immigrant" argument that Mexican and Central American immigrants will "do the work Americans won't do," as if some humans were created for menial labor, in contrast to Americans? We want cheap, fast, with no strings attached, because that string is what connects us to another human being, and that's too much to consider.
Yes, we exploit resources and the idea of infinite resources--how many people still brush their teeth and shave with the water running?--but we also exploit fellow humans to the point of dehumanization. How many people have said or heard from friends the "pro-immigrant" argument that Mexican and Central American immigrants will "do the work Americans won't do," as if some humans were created for menial labor, in contrast to Americans? We want cheap, fast, with no strings attached, because that string is what connects us to another human being, and that's too much to consider.
15
here it is, the validation of godwin's law in the domain of climate science: "if any discussion continues long enough, someone will eventually compare something to hitler or the nazis."
mr. snyder's piece is unfocused, in part by a serious case of sinophobia and a complete misplacement of the moral crux from food supplies to the continuously growing population of mouths that need feeding.
the moral failing in our response to climate science is not our insensitivity to suffering, but our reckless sense of entitlement. it's not that we are malign, but that we are fatuously stupid. we are not the brownshirts of the 1930's, but george grosz's berliners of the 1920's.
one led to the other, and that is the point: we live in a culture that can easily accept the future mr. snyder describes, because we lack the will to look at what we have become. everything is too comfortable, too easy, and too much fun the way it is.
the nazis said what they meant and did what they said. we simply debate, at parties, with fine wines; we're all talk and no walk. comparing us to the nazis may actually be unfair to the nazis.
mr. snyder's piece is unfocused, in part by a serious case of sinophobia and a complete misplacement of the moral crux from food supplies to the continuously growing population of mouths that need feeding.
the moral failing in our response to climate science is not our insensitivity to suffering, but our reckless sense of entitlement. it's not that we are malign, but that we are fatuously stupid. we are not the brownshirts of the 1930's, but george grosz's berliners of the 1920's.
one led to the other, and that is the point: we live in a culture that can easily accept the future mr. snyder describes, because we lack the will to look at what we have become. everything is too comfortable, too easy, and too much fun the way it is.
the nazis said what they meant and did what they said. we simply debate, at parties, with fine wines; we're all talk and no walk. comparing us to the nazis may actually be unfair to the nazis.
9
This article is an attempt to move to an endgame on the climate change discussion by accusing those who dare to "question the validity of the science" with having an "intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler", and thereby removing any kind of legitimacy from their argument. It is disappointing that the author, in addition to having missed the lesson that no modern day personality or political movement matches up with Hitler and the Nazis, would try to limit the debate in this manner. Declaring certain viewpoints as unacceptable is never an effective way to convince people of your argument, something I would have assumed the author, given his background, should know.
10
You could also contend that a prospective ecological crisis creates an opportunity for fanatics who blame "the system" to try to find redemption via revolution. That is, they may use it as a post hoc justification for something they wanted to do anyway. What people really want, even Yale professors, is to get others to think like them. Conservative science-deniers are not all tied to the fossil fuel industry; the hoi polloi believe climate change is a hoax because God dictates the weather.
I'm worried that if the right-wing continues to deny climate change and stays its present course, the backlash from the political left, who will seethe with hatred for the right (blaming it for the coming annihilation of civilization), could actually be the more potent threat. I don't think archival research specially qualifies one to disseminate grandiloquent, genocide-preempting lectures.
Let us not claim that one side of our political divide is Hitlerian. We all are, potentially. And science as world-saver is as old as science itself. But science can't save us from ourselves. Until we abjure narrow creeds, until we learn to communicate, to think and feel what people unlike ourselves think and feel, until we learn to empathize on a vastly grander scale, we'll forever be a danger to our planet and to ourselves.
"Bloodlands" was terrific, professor. I'll be reading "Black Earth" soon.
I'm worried that if the right-wing continues to deny climate change and stays its present course, the backlash from the political left, who will seethe with hatred for the right (blaming it for the coming annihilation of civilization), could actually be the more potent threat. I don't think archival research specially qualifies one to disseminate grandiloquent, genocide-preempting lectures.
Let us not claim that one side of our political divide is Hitlerian. We all are, potentially. And science as world-saver is as old as science itself. But science can't save us from ourselves. Until we abjure narrow creeds, until we learn to communicate, to think and feel what people unlike ourselves think and feel, until we learn to empathize on a vastly grander scale, we'll forever be a danger to our planet and to ourselves.
"Bloodlands" was terrific, professor. I'll be reading "Black Earth" soon.
9
Precisely how global crises eventually play out - that is difficult to foresee. But what we can do is make simple changes that help everyone. For example, the habits of consumption here in the US are essentially unsustainable. The waste of food and energy should be unacceptable... but no one thinks twice before buying more food than they need, then tossing it if is spoils. Nor do people think hard enough about driving where walking or public transit would serve the same purpose. These areas where we can make simple changes if we only thought harder and learned more about how our consumption affects someone halfway around the world. Eat local. Prepare your own meals. Walk whenever possible, take public transit whenever possible. These are simple acts that lead to a healthier lifestyle and reduce pressure on resources in lands far away.
Resources are finite and we are managing them very poorly indeed. By being mindful of our daily acts - be they preparing meals or traveling to work - we can make small changes that add up considerably over time. I doubt that this will eliminate crises, but it may make them manageable and somewhat controllable. But if we do not try at the level of the individual, the darker future presented by this article may be more likely to occur.
Resources are finite and we are managing them very poorly indeed. By being mindful of our daily acts - be they preparing meals or traveling to work - we can make small changes that add up considerably over time. I doubt that this will eliminate crises, but it may make them manageable and somewhat controllable. But if we do not try at the level of the individual, the darker future presented by this article may be more likely to occur.
7
"The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science."
For someone who supposedly "denied" science - whatever that really means for part of the scientific process is questioning, even supposed "proven" theories - Hitler certainly based his ideology on a flawed version of it, eugenics, and used science to enable his conquest and killing machinery. Eugenics was also "settled" to many of that era, not just in Germany, but even here with avid proponents such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who desired to limit the reproduction of the so-called unfit.
For someone who supposedly "denied" science - whatever that really means for part of the scientific process is questioning, even supposed "proven" theories - Hitler certainly based his ideology on a flawed version of it, eugenics, and used science to enable his conquest and killing machinery. Eugenics was also "settled" to many of that era, not just in Germany, but even here with avid proponents such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who desired to limit the reproduction of the so-called unfit.
4
Only a few years ago Mr. Snyder was telling us that science was unequivocal that we have reached "peak oil", and that we needed alternative energy sources because scare oil and rising prices would destabilize the world.
That science was, of course, like the population bomb and all other anti-development panic predictions - false.
So, Mr. Snyder changed the narrative to global warming is the new reason to stop development and stop taking advantage of cheap energy.
Mr. Snyder's claim that human beings are incapable of adapting to climate change is the real science denial.
Human beings survived just fine through ice ages, floods, droughts and famine with simple stone tools. But somehow, people like Mr. Snyder want to convince us, that with late 21st century technology, we will be powerless to adapt. The very humans who can create thriving cities in the dessert (like Las Vegas or Dubai), will all of a sudden roll over and die, because the earth warms a couple of degrees.
How is this credible? Why isn't Mr. Snyder talking about scientific solutions to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere? Or scientific solutions to do high altitude spraying to regulate the earth's temperature to whatever humans desire?
Climate alarmists like Mr. Snyder are the real science deniers.
That science was, of course, like the population bomb and all other anti-development panic predictions - false.
So, Mr. Snyder changed the narrative to global warming is the new reason to stop development and stop taking advantage of cheap energy.
Mr. Snyder's claim that human beings are incapable of adapting to climate change is the real science denial.
Human beings survived just fine through ice ages, floods, droughts and famine with simple stone tools. But somehow, people like Mr. Snyder want to convince us, that with late 21st century technology, we will be powerless to adapt. The very humans who can create thriving cities in the dessert (like Las Vegas or Dubai), will all of a sudden roll over and die, because the earth warms a couple of degrees.
How is this credible? Why isn't Mr. Snyder talking about scientific solutions to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere? Or scientific solutions to do high altitude spraying to regulate the earth's temperature to whatever humans desire?
Climate alarmists like Mr. Snyder are the real science deniers.
11
What a hysterical editorial. Very unworthy of the NYT. We will end doing what is best for the US. So please stop these useless editorial comparing climate change to the Holocaust.
17
So to pose questions on the causes, effects, or solutions concerning global warming is to be morally equal to a member of a Nazi death squad executing women and children. Beyond the grotesqueness of the accusation, which is really only slightly more hysterical than the norm for predictions emitted by the earth-is-doomed-and-all-the-bunnies-will-die school of overwrought Werthers, lies the accomplishment of penning the most egregious and inappropriate Holocaust analogy ever published by a major newspaper.
Perhaps when Professor Snyder returns to history after his vacation in science, he could find a few other cases in the history of the planet and human beings where catastrophe struck. And yet here we both still are. We might be tougher and smarter than the brilliant minds of Yale evidently believes us to be.
Perhaps when Professor Snyder returns to history after his vacation in science, he could find a few other cases in the history of the planet and human beings where catastrophe struck. And yet here we both still are. We might be tougher and smarter than the brilliant minds of Yale evidently believes us to be.
6
This is a meandering and maddening piece. Too many concepts. Too many analogies. Too many inferences. And too little substance. And yet ... it may very well prove prescient. What Professor Synder seems to be saying is this: Whereas the Nazi's were driven by bogus neo-malthusian thinking (i.e., the notion that geometric population growth would inexorably outstrip arithmetic food supply growth leading to starvation), in our era of global climate change, such malthusian arguments may not be so bogus after all.
2
Terrific piece and reminder of what can be wrought by such hubris. As a further reminder, this past spring and summer in Sonoma Valley (Northern California) was the first year I can recall in my lifetime, where there as no birdsong, whatsoever (there were calls and birds, but no song.). As a soundscape ecologist, this fact has been linked to both the drought, a 1200 year record version BTW, and to global warming where spring is occurring approximately 2 weeks earlier than it did 20 years ago. http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-man-who-listens-to-animal...
4
There are 2 fundamental philosophies driving policies that will push us to the kind of catastrophe that the author worries about: The first is greed, the real reason we haven't dealt with climate change. The second is believing it is ok to save your own family/nation even if it means the death of others.
We learned last summer that my daughter's college was digging up mustard gas and other WMDs from WWI that had been tested on campus and nearby. She had a class in a building where there was a sign telling what to do if a siren went off (shelter in place). I thought about buying her a gas mask. But I imagined her putting it on while other people suffered, struggling to breathe, panicking. I wouldn't want to be in that position, even if it meant I escaped unharmed and neither would she.
We are already willing to sacrifice others for our own safety, or imagined safety. Already we have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq for questionable purposes and are in denial about it. Is it worth living if you have to do it by killing others (or enacting policies that lead to their deaths)? This is a discussion we need to have.
I hate to think the author is right to worry about this, but I think he is right.
I hate to think the author is right to worry about this, but I think he is right.
We learned last summer that my daughter's college was digging up mustard gas and other WMDs from WWI that had been tested on campus and nearby. She had a class in a building where there was a sign telling what to do if a siren went off (shelter in place). I thought about buying her a gas mask. But I imagined her putting it on while other people suffered, struggling to breathe, panicking. I wouldn't want to be in that position, even if it meant I escaped unharmed and neither would she.
We are already willing to sacrifice others for our own safety, or imagined safety. Already we have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq for questionable purposes and are in denial about it. Is it worth living if you have to do it by killing others (or enacting policies that lead to their deaths)? This is a discussion we need to have.
I hate to think the author is right to worry about this, but I think he is right.
I hate to think the author is right to worry about this, but I think he is right.
3
An interesting historical thesis; we'll read his book. Too bad that he leaps to makes the occasional statement which I presume to be 100% a guess and 100% wrong. This statement is surely false: "yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites", and can only be said on account of the lack of effort to research the point.
4
Good grief...Let's give this "Climate Change" a rest
5
I think we could handle drought through desalinization plants and pipelines but that's a pretty small part of a huge problem
Totalitarians routinely use crises to expand their power. If an actual crisis does not exist, they make one up and repeat the big lie until it becomes commonly accepted "fact."
12
Probably should have read all the commments as well as a reread of the editorial. All that not withstanding, is not the very obvious problem that of an ever increasing global population and an ever decreasing amount of resources? Not just those non renewable resources of minerals but arable land and potable water.
So, to the very obvious problem, there is an equally obvious answer. There are too many of us.
So, to the very obvious problem, there is an equally obvious answer. There are too many of us.
8
Best not to compare ANYTHING the EU does now to the Holocaust. Really. Sheesh!
8
We have one world. We have seen Hitler try one solution and fail miserably, horrifically ... can we please learn the right lesson from Nazi Germany?
This is why Donald Trump is such a frightening figure.
America for most of its history has largely been a refuge for the persecuted and downtrodden. It was consciously understood to be a "pressure value" where people could escape the conflicts of the Old World. The American frontier allowed people to constantly run to be free.
That frontier is no longer here, and I am not sure there is another habitable frontier for the persecuted and downtrodden to run to.
We have one world. We have so much fresh water. We have so much arable land.
We have seen what "us versus them" brings us when there is no where left to run.
America is a grand experiment ... let's devise a better way again.
What other choice do we have?
This is why Donald Trump is such a frightening figure.
America for most of its history has largely been a refuge for the persecuted and downtrodden. It was consciously understood to be a "pressure value" where people could escape the conflicts of the Old World. The American frontier allowed people to constantly run to be free.
That frontier is no longer here, and I am not sure there is another habitable frontier for the persecuted and downtrodden to run to.
We have one world. We have so much fresh water. We have so much arable land.
We have seen what "us versus them" brings us when there is no where left to run.
America is a grand experiment ... let's devise a better way again.
What other choice do we have?
2
The acceptance of climate change science requires society to make not only hard choices, but the obligation to do difficult things to deal with those choices. On the other hand, blaming a "convenient" them and proclaiming that if we only get rid of "them" all our problems will be solved presents a seemingly easy final solution to solve the problem. Charismatic despotic leaders have exploited this premise forever. The only thing that will overcome it are leaders who can inspire all of us to choose to do the "hard things". Will coming to grips with the fact that human beings are fouling their own nest and if they continue to do so we will become extinct to difficult for us? I have no idea, but right now, things are not looking particularly rosy.
4
A thoughtful and alarming article. But one that studiously ignores the elephant in the room. Or, more accurately, the lemmings burgeoning around our feet.
What is precious, what is valued? Only that which is rare. Gold, always. Soon, perhaps, arable land and fresh water. But we, the people? We, too, are precious only when we are few, and we are far too many. Will we, like Little Father Time in "Jude the Obscure" kill ourselves, leaving the message, "Done because we are too many?" Perhaps. Let us hope not.
But there is a better way. The surest way to decrease our carbon footprint is to decrease our footprints. No Horseman of the Apocalypse need be recruited. Simple and gentle birth control science, sedulously and benignly applied, will serve. Will anything be lost when the nurseries and play grounds grow quieter? Of course it will. It would be hypocritical to deny it. But it would be suicidal to postpone it.
What is precious, what is valued? Only that which is rare. Gold, always. Soon, perhaps, arable land and fresh water. But we, the people? We, too, are precious only when we are few, and we are far too many. Will we, like Little Father Time in "Jude the Obscure" kill ourselves, leaving the message, "Done because we are too many?" Perhaps. Let us hope not.
But there is a better way. The surest way to decrease our carbon footprint is to decrease our footprints. No Horseman of the Apocalypse need be recruited. Simple and gentle birth control science, sedulously and benignly applied, will serve. Will anything be lost when the nurseries and play grounds grow quieter? Of course it will. It would be hypocritical to deny it. But it would be suicidal to postpone it.
4
Fear of crazies and corporate greed isn't helpful unless one can prove this is what is happening already. Social change has a way of creeping up and championing a populous sound piece. We do know economic food scarcity is a problem in America, along with the plague of poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyle. We do know that our schools fail to deliver results, even in the best funded areas. These are not problems of climate or greed, but mass production failing to scale up to greater population.
Our worst events have been tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes that affected people close to or below sea level. The practical call would be to move people away from the ocean and senseable evacuation plans. No one's doing that. If the magic of good sense isn't expressed, who cares about innovation.
One could go a long way in convincing the public that crazy isn't the answer if these institution deserved trust. The fear we should have is continuing business as usual. The truth is great progress is only possible if we act well on what we already know.
Our worst events have been tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes that affected people close to or below sea level. The practical call would be to move people away from the ocean and senseable evacuation plans. No one's doing that. If the magic of good sense isn't expressed, who cares about innovation.
One could go a long way in convincing the public that crazy isn't the answer if these institution deserved trust. The fear we should have is continuing business as usual. The truth is great progress is only possible if we act well on what we already know.
3
NO EXIT Timothy Snyder's compelling article heralds, potentially, the end of the world. His clear analysis of global power politics, shifting alliances and potential aggressors is beyond ominous. Snyder suggests that we will not recognize when the next Holocaust is approaching. There is little to persuade countries that they need to set aside differences in order to for civilization to survive. Sharing the wealth and consumerism are at odds. Everyone is calling for sacrifice from others, but not from themselves. Materialism has so pervaded the west that we've become a collection of grabocracies. It's self-interest of the individual on steroids. And all the while, the GOP, that has a stranglehold on Congress, is denying science and global warming in the name of "religion." Europe's well-intentioned acceptance of refugees is, unfortunately, but the tip of the iceberg. We're on the only ship that there is. And it's sinking. Slowly. For now.
6
The biggest denial of science is an everyday, everywhere one that doesn't take a scientist to understand, the earth-murdering habit by humans of popping out more and more babies like there's no tomorrow.
12
The analysis that Professor Snyder offers is comprehensive--part history and part current events--in describing one of the world's biggest problems. And, as he correctly points-out, it may very well be the root cause behind some of today's on-going events--China scouring the world for various resources, including food; genocide in Africa; aggressive terrorism in the Middle East; Putin meddling in Europe; and the U. S. Flat-Earthers (in Congress and Business) are continuing to fiddle while the whole world literally burns to a crisp.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
6
Easily the best written piece on this subject in the past year. I suggest all open minded individuals pass it on to their close minded friends. Maybe one or two will get the point and come into the light out of the dark side.
6
The GOP candidates argue for many of these same things. Hitler initially considered deporting Jews to Madagascar, when he realized that deportation was a pipe dream, he looked for another solution.
2
Global warming is more likely to increase food supply than to decrease it. It increases the length of the growing season, and makes it possible to grow cold-resistant crops (such as wheat and rye) into the sub-Arctic.
Warming is predicted by the climate modelers to increase rainfall because warmer air can contain more moisture than cooler air. In the 48 contiguous United States dry periods have decreased in the past century.
Climate change is real, and at least partly anthropogenic, but should not be unthinkingly assumed to be harmful.
Warming is predicted by the climate modelers to increase rainfall because warmer air can contain more moisture than cooler air. In the 48 contiguous United States dry periods have decreased in the past century.
Climate change is real, and at least partly anthropogenic, but should not be unthinkingly assumed to be harmful.
4
That we should do what we can to reduce our pollution output is -- and always has been -- a sensible policy goal. But shrillness about climate change is probably more dangerous to a sensible reduction of pollution than any other threat. Even if climate factors have been an underlying driver of some the world instability we see now, these things cannot be managed by climate policy alone because they are very complex and as much rooted in human psychology. The calming effects of the post-World War II order are gone and the world is back to the chaos of reordering that the Cold War suspended and that has been accelerated by huge national income disparities, jaw dropping technological change, and near instantaneous world-wide travel/shipping. These more than climate change are the drivers of the violence and unease we see. Climate is surely a factor, but far less of one than the author conveys.
1
Two minor points to be made re a well written in depth article about the potential consequences of climate change on nations and peoples. First, the Nazi officer's remark to the Jewish child,"You must die so that we might live" was repeated almost word for words by Gen. JORGE VIDELA, strong man of the dictatorship that seized power in ARGENTINA in 1976 to combat "subversive delinquency. The armed forces during this period were admirers of the Nazis, and even designed uniforms and helmets for their troops similar to those worn by the SS. Second, Hitler's anti Semitism was not a new phenomenon in Germany in the 1920's, and had little to do with liebenstraum. Anti Semitism was a long and dishonorable tradition in GERMANY and Austria long before Hitler entered the political arena. Read GOLDHAGEN's works on the subject. Even Germans who did not have a hand in persecuting Jews shared the preconceived notion of them as unworthy.Having a son who graduated from RAMAZ, and who speaks Hebrew as well as English,I am particularly sensitive to this subject. Re the topic of the article, the good professor summarizes the problem in general, but offers no practical solutions.Unless all the nations, including INDIA and CHINA r mobilized to combat climate change, we r fighting a losing battle.
2
Ah the hanging chad commentary. What does that mean?? Back in 2000 as some might remember there was great controversy on voting irregularities. A popular T shirt at the time had a ballot printed on it with a mass jumble of lines going from candidates names to boxes you were supposed to mark. It then challenged you to follow the mass jumble to candidates names. This attempted to explain why people made mistakes voting. They couldn't line up the name with the little box. This is what this preposterous article does. It lines up the holocaust with climate change When actually the OPPOSITE is true. It wont be countries that are competing for resources who will kill off populations, it will be CLIMATE RELIGION supporters who will for the "good of the earth" kill off populations. THIS is what hitler did. Getting land and resources was SECONDARY to getting rid of the problem, namely jews who he felt controlled the world along with subhuman groups of gene pools. This writer has it all backwards. Man is creating in the minds of the religious left (their religion being climate change) so the natural conclusion is to get rid of man. Reams of books have been written on this subject going back 40 some years when we were all told that by the 1990's man would have no food to eat, the earth would be so polluted that the moon would have to be colonized to continue humanity and nuclear war would destroy everything. How did those predictions turn out??
3
The author makes a good point that Hitler fought WWII for resources out of scientific ignorance. But he downplays the main reason behind the Holocaust: anti-Semitism, absolute hatred of the Jews, scapegoating Jews for Germany's loss in WWI and their post-war problems.
It wasn't just that Hitler thought "Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program." Jews weren't just an obstacle. They were a people to be exterminated simply for existing.
European and especially German anti-Semitism had been growing for decades before WWII. Hitler turned this hatred into genocide.
The Holocaust was a singular event in human history, although not the only genocide. When we Jews say "never again," we mean we must be ever vigilant against circumstances that could lead to another Holocaust. We must all be vigilant against any group that tries to exterminate another, and react quickly to prevent it. Human survival may depend on it.
It wasn't just that Hitler thought "Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program." Jews weren't just an obstacle. They were a people to be exterminated simply for existing.
European and especially German anti-Semitism had been growing for decades before WWII. Hitler turned this hatred into genocide.
The Holocaust was a singular event in human history, although not the only genocide. When we Jews say "never again," we mean we must be ever vigilant against circumstances that could lead to another Holocaust. We must all be vigilant against any group that tries to exterminate another, and react quickly to prevent it. Human survival may depend on it.
7
Its happening right now. It is just that your average American would rather think about their next retail gratification event than acknowledging our current reality, few people can deal with the big picture and that is our undoing. As for the Hitler - Holocaust lead in I think it was more distraction than effective device. We have plenty of real alive people exploiting our well being and undermining our dignity and they should be called out.
5
The parallels that Snyder presents, that in a very intelligent and sociological vein, he establishes a link between the concept of Einsatzgruppe and the present driving force that engineers and feeds neoliberal machinations, where the U.S., China and the Eurozone lead the pack of rich economies with teeming business dominance. This is a world state of affairs that resembles a landscape blotched with potential humanitarian calamities waiting to happen. However, what Snyder doesn't mention (nor does the prominent media conduits) but clearly implies, is the role that the masses play in these ideological explosive historical pockets. Hitler and his prior and post archetypes were able to effectuate extreme wickedness chiefly due to the fertile ground which thrives in societies where ignorance prospers, thus where people are gullible enough to be beguiled by, for example, pro-Trump devotees in the U.S.. The nation is engrossed, shocked and entertained by his vulgarisms and lowbrow rhetoric, but nothing is being said about what exactly fuels this national phenomenon. Nobody talks about how ignorance factors into this most important development.
5
There are people who deny the value of science. And there are those who blame groups of people for problem (Trump and Hispanics). The difference between today, and the 1930s and 40s is that the population of the planet is over 7 billion! (The population in 1940 was under 3 billion.) And our use of fossil fuels is soaring. The planet really can't sustain us.
6
To the lugubrious scenario described, add the penchant to dehumanize the out-groups and wage war, mercilessly. Denial of climate change has its antecedents not just with The Holocaust but also with human evolution.
Perhaps if we begin to examine the overwhelming evidence that we evolved through group selection (human community against human community for hundreds of thousands of years), we can transcend the penchant to kill. Recognizing the behavioral baggage of our own evolution, perhaps we can embark on the radical solutions necessary for global sustainability. Or perhaps the penchant is instinctual and we are doomed.
Perhaps if we begin to examine the overwhelming evidence that we evolved through group selection (human community against human community for hundreds of thousands of years), we can transcend the penchant to kill. Recognizing the behavioral baggage of our own evolution, perhaps we can embark on the radical solutions necessary for global sustainability. Or perhaps the penchant is instinctual and we are doomed.
2
"The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive...."
I'm sorry, but Hitler's thinking was far simpler and worse than that. He hated Jews for who they were...for being Jewish. He didn't think they were human.
While one can appreciate the desire to use the Holocaust as a way to bring attention to other great potential tragedies in the making, this comparison is not really appropriate.
I'm sorry, but Hitler's thinking was far simpler and worse than that. He hated Jews for who they were...for being Jewish. He didn't think they were human.
While one can appreciate the desire to use the Holocaust as a way to bring attention to other great potential tragedies in the making, this comparison is not really appropriate.
7
Climate change has been with us since the earth has existed. There are many examples of peoples being displaced by changes in climate. This is not a new Philemon.
2
German Jews during the time of Hitler said, "It can't happen here."
2
Yeup, Hitler denied science alright. Evidence by his love of the theory of evolution, and therefore the belief that the races represent different stages of selection with one being most evolved.....
4
Another well-understood tenant of modern science (namely, ecology and related economic and energy studies) is that humans are over-populating our planet in unsustainable numbers.
This reality is a recurring theme threaded throughout the points raised in this essay. Although that point seems barely acknowledged. Overpopulation continues to be the elephant in the room that is rarely confronted head-on, much to the consternation of those of us who care about dying oceans, disappearing species, decimated natural habitats, and looming battles over dwindling resources that the capitalist model has no incentive to manage in a sustainable manner.
Genocide, tragically, then becomes a more likely outcome of that overpopulation and human obsession with growth for the sake of growth.
This reality is a recurring theme threaded throughout the points raised in this essay. Although that point seems barely acknowledged. Overpopulation continues to be the elephant in the room that is rarely confronted head-on, much to the consternation of those of us who care about dying oceans, disappearing species, decimated natural habitats, and looming battles over dwindling resources that the capitalist model has no incentive to manage in a sustainable manner.
Genocide, tragically, then becomes a more likely outcome of that overpopulation and human obsession with growth for the sake of growth.
7
I just read in another article one individuals definition of leadership. It was, basically, the ability to sway people into following them. Most of the reasons countries gave for going to war in WWII were to get the population behind them and their policies. What this world needs is a good old fashion Alien Invasion. Not so bad as to exterminate us but seriously enough that the countries of the world have to unite to fight it off. Perhaps then we will see each other in a different light!
1
I would not be surprised if the NY Times receives political backlash from Chinese officials for publishing such an unsubstantiated op-ed piece, that is taking liberty attempting to paint a correlation to the current Chinese government with the Nazi regime...
3
'Many of these populist parties are supported by Russia, which is openly pursuing a divide-and-conquer policy with the aim of bringing about European disintegration.' This is a long shot of argumentation: just because some populists have things in common with Putin does not mean that he is interested in European desintegration, to the contrary! Many Europeans see the US interests as the trouble maker in Ukraine and believe that it's part of the American agenda to alienate Europe from Russia in order to keep it under control. Divide and rule.
2
The plumb line of history says that these crazed murderous monsters derived their vitriol from dynamics of hatred that ran from Rome to the Crusades to Luther's unrequited love to the 30 year war to the early 1940's.
These political gangsters stole as they killed, as well as raped, for they were interested in blood-lust, power and an eternal existential (and self defeating/unwinnable) struggle against death/God itself.
Do not turn it into an environmental metaphor. The Nazi's weren't the dark side of tree hugging. This wasn't about "limited resources" as much as it was about the small mindedness of those who fail to understand that economics isn't a zero sum game, nor some Jewish scheme of world domination.
The Eizengroppen, the SS, the concentration camp guards weren't evil environmentalists, they were just human venality trapped in a cage of hatred, guarded by their rigid orthodoxy of thought.
I can see future Fox channel discussions about the genocidal environmental movement. (I'd look more closely at individual Nazi psycho-sexual motivations before I call the hunt for Lebensraum a twisted permutation of Gaia worship amongst Germans).
These political gangsters stole as they killed, as well as raped, for they were interested in blood-lust, power and an eternal existential (and self defeating/unwinnable) struggle against death/God itself.
Do not turn it into an environmental metaphor. The Nazi's weren't the dark side of tree hugging. This wasn't about "limited resources" as much as it was about the small mindedness of those who fail to understand that economics isn't a zero sum game, nor some Jewish scheme of world domination.
The Eizengroppen, the SS, the concentration camp guards weren't evil environmentalists, they were just human venality trapped in a cage of hatred, guarded by their rigid orthodoxy of thought.
I can see future Fox channel discussions about the genocidal environmental movement. (I'd look more closely at individual Nazi psycho-sexual motivations before I call the hunt for Lebensraum a twisted permutation of Gaia worship amongst Germans).
2
This is more than preposterous. it's insulting, demagogic, Eco-terrorism disguised as a news article. It's insulting to Jews as well. Hitler was one crazy person, now we are all Hitlers? Give me a brake. This is the sort of tripe that gives believers in climate change action (like myself) a huge black eye and undermines all of our good efforts to publicize the real problems.
Folks, this does real damage to those of us who believe action is necessary because non-believers will read this and conclude we are idiots.
Folks, this does real damage to those of us who believe action is necessary because non-believers will read this and conclude we are idiots.
7
Climate change, starvation and the competition for resources has been the dominant driving force in human evolution. It has always been so. Why should anyone be surprised that it will be so in the future?
5
I agree with the author. In particular, I am concerned that rising sea levels will displace many, many people, or submerge the infrastructure that they rely on, whether or not their property is lost. People who are displaced, particularly without organized relocation and compensation, are likely to become very angry. Some of those people are also likely to have organized militaries. Some of those militaries are likely to have weapons of mass destruction. My deepest concern is that this all leads to a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but on both a multi-lateral and sustained basis.
3
After which who will face their Nuremberg?
Another Ivy League academic providing intellectual ammunition for those interested in creating nouveau threats and wars.
This time is China going 'lebensraum' and conquering territories in Asia (Australia including?) to feed its growing hungry and wealthy middle class. Good material for Hollywood producers to entertain uneducated Americans seeking cheap trills.
This time is China going 'lebensraum' and conquering territories in Asia (Australia including?) to feed its growing hungry and wealthy middle class. Good material for Hollywood producers to entertain uneducated Americans seeking cheap trills.
3
Not that what you have said has no validity but you seem to forget the endemic history of anti-Semitism in Europe and the West.
6
I take exception to characterizing the Second World War as "a war for resources". It was not a war for resources any more than it was caused by a cabal of international Jewish bankers. These ideas were the insane ravings of a madman. There was in fact no critical shortage of resources; just as there was no international conspiracy of Jewish bankers. The cause of the war was Hitler's ideas just as you admit when you said the war was fought because Hitler believed something. Today Putin believes crazy things too and so does the Chinese leadership, and the Republican leadership in the USA. The cause of wars are the crazy ideas that leaders have and which they spread to their peoples virus-like by control of media outlets and suppression of dissent. For the cause of the war you should have read the books Hitler read to understand the deep cynicism which marked his thinking: "You say a good cause justifies any war; but I say a good war justifies any cause." - Nietzsche
7
Just a comment on China and the problems of its feeding: As Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (1957-60 roughly) sputtered into incoherence, the country suffered the worst famine in human history. Two recent studies put the total dead at 45 mllion (Frank Dikötter) or 37 million (Yang Jisheng). The chief cause was not bad biology (racism) but bad social science (Maoist economics) and some bad natural science as well. But no doubt the catastrophe has left China (even if it will not publicly admit it) with a bitter memory of hunger and death.
1
I have read Tomothy Snyder twice, and I can't find my way out of the conclusion that Hitler was right and that the modern Greens are latter day Nazis. Both ideologies, Nazis and Greens, see ecological disaster coming. They merely quibble over some minor details, but both want to see the collapse of Western civilization as it currently exists.
Mr Snyder's last point, that we should support new energy technologies, is just bizarre. Everybody on the planet wants new energy energy technologies. It's the laws of thermodynamics that are not cooperating.
Mr Snyder's last point, that we should support new energy technologies, is just bizarre. Everybody on the planet wants new energy energy technologies. It's the laws of thermodynamics that are not cooperating.
6
Thanks for destroying any prospect of a peaceful Sunday afternoon, given the dire and totally logical thought exercise above! The truly scary element is that the varied reaction to climate change in America, Europe, China, and Russia does contain the elements of future conflict at the global scale. Scary stuff!
3
Absolutely brilliant.
3
I agree that we are not taking global warming seriously enough. I am especially worried that we are not looking to future troubles in our own backyard. As the southwestern territories become less and less habitable and productive, Californians and Texans will start streaming across the heartland bringing drugs, disease, crime and guns to the Midwest. It is not too soon to strengthen state laws to protect the heartland from these future criminals.
And don't get me going about Canada. Their immigration laws are unfriendly to say the least. It is difficult for an American to emigrate to Canada even though they have all of this land and resources ripe for development as the thawing begins. The world knows U.S. citizens are very good at bringing prosperity to other nations. So why the hostility? It all seems very provocative to me. I can't begin to imagine our military is taking this insult. Just saying.
And don't get me going about Canada. Their immigration laws are unfriendly to say the least. It is difficult for an American to emigrate to Canada even though they have all of this land and resources ripe for development as the thawing begins. The world knows U.S. citizens are very good at bringing prosperity to other nations. So why the hostility? It all seems very provocative to me. I can't begin to imagine our military is taking this insult. Just saying.
Boy, the AGW crowd must really believe they are losing the scientific argument. A sixth degree of seperation trying to compare atmospheric co2 to Hitler and the Holocaust. It fits the pattern though. When liberals are loosing an arguememt they resort to name calling (racist, homophobe, denier, etc.) and Hitler analogies.
All these catastrophic predictions are based on models, which are a tool of science, not science. And these models have been so inaccrate that even the IPC had to acknowledge the inaccuracies in chapter 9 of AR5. Climate has always, and will always change. We do not have a thermostat that can change temperature by adding or reducing atmospheric co2. The amount of
Co2 humans add or subtract from the atmosphere is such a small % that it is nearly inconsequential.
All these catastrophic predictions are based on models, which are a tool of science, not science. And these models have been so inaccrate that even the IPC had to acknowledge the inaccuracies in chapter 9 of AR5. Climate has always, and will always change. We do not have a thermostat that can change temperature by adding or reducing atmospheric co2. The amount of
Co2 humans add or subtract from the atmosphere is such a small % that it is nearly inconsequential.
3
Almost all social problems, including distribution of resources, become more tractable with a smaller population. Birth control should be freely available, and encouraged. Republicans in Congress do the world a disservice by attempting to defund Planned Parenthood. Tax incentives should be arranged to discourage large families. There should be no subsidies for having children.
I always cringe when I read an article about declining populations in Japan or Germany that portrays it as a bad thing. It should be applauded.
I always cringe when I read an article about declining populations in Japan or Germany that portrays it as a bad thing. It should be applauded.
7
My father, Stephen H. Emmons, a naturalist and conservationist from Kennebunkport, Maine, taught me that science is knowledge and knowledge is the TRUTH. History is studied to learn lessons about the perils of the human mind and how it controls us, and the folly that often ensues (genocide, war). The lessons are not to repeat the terrible mind diversions of the past. Thank you for pointing out the important association between agriculture and genocide....Stephen H. Emmons would wholeheartedly agree with you.
2
It is "evolutionary biological science" denial; that tribe is a meaningless distinguisher for humans, not "agricultural science" denial, that was Germany's "science problem." Ironically Jews are themselves a maternal blood line tribe.
This article is categorically worthless without some reference to population control, the bugbear of our Earth's evironmental issues. It seems that the standard PC agenda would force everyone into an engineered "sustainable" lifestyle rather than address the far more simple problem that people should not breed in a way that exacerbates the resources problem.
P.S. - German national socialism was a function of their demcrcacy, which gave them 44% of the popular vote and 95% of the states in the 1933 election that brought them to power. Dragging Putin into this article was a pointless cheacp shot and particularly ironic when using a Western invasion of Ukraine as a major focus of the story.
This article is categorically worthless without some reference to population control, the bugbear of our Earth's evironmental issues. It seems that the standard PC agenda would force everyone into an engineered "sustainable" lifestyle rather than address the far more simple problem that people should not breed in a way that exacerbates the resources problem.
P.S. - German national socialism was a function of their demcrcacy, which gave them 44% of the popular vote and 95% of the states in the 1933 election that brought them to power. Dragging Putin into this article was a pointless cheacp shot and particularly ironic when using a Western invasion of Ukraine as a major focus of the story.
7
"The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science."
On the contrary, Hitler's regime was on the cutting-edge of eugenics, which was the science-du-jour.
On the contrary, Hitler's regime was on the cutting-edge of eugenics, which was the science-du-jour.
4
Please join me in the following pledge: I (your name) pledge to never again use the word "conflate". Date and sign.
2
What you have as an essay here would be much better worked into a sci-fi novel, or a script for a feature film. You have the points of the story, but no relatable characters and no plot line.
Whenever you mix multiple domains, you get outcomes that are new and unpredictable, yet overlapping, for the simple reason that most things in our world overlap in some way.
How about a horror-ghost story of Nazi’s coming back to sabotage zero-emission technologies?
Whenever you mix multiple domains, you get outcomes that are new and unpredictable, yet overlapping, for the simple reason that most things in our world overlap in some way.
How about a horror-ghost story of Nazi’s coming back to sabotage zero-emission technologies?
2
Sure, there are those who currently deny science. And there are people who blame ethnic groups for our troubles (Trump and Hispanics). But the reality is that we are living on a planet that's warming because there are over 7 billion of us! (There po, and are attacking groups of
3
War grows out of a pinch of resources, real or imagined. The irony is, while using 20 times the resources of the same number of people in the Third World, Americans feel a pinch justifying wars. Instead of enough food or water, we fight for oil.
Sometimes conflating two things, like the Holocaust and climate change, to highlight the point you are trying to make, is only going to provoke a response to the conflation rather than to the danger you are pointing to.
5
If global warming or climate change is not controlled by sharply reducing harmful man-made emissions that will poison the air, water (including our rivers and oceans) and soil of our planet we will face the prospect of large numbers of deaths from its effects. Even before this happens, we can expect to witness global wars of unprecedented proportions as deprived nations will war against others to obtain the needed resources, notably clean or potable water and food. Increased weather extremes and storms plus growing desertification and declines in agricultural productivity in many regions of the world, not just in the south from California to Texas, have been already underway for many decades.
In this the outcomes of continued worsening global warming or climate change will resemble the Black Death which was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history in Europe from 1346 to 1353. During that period the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population and substantial populations in other regions of the world, including the Middle East and Asia. This pandemic did not end then as the plague recurred occasionally in Europe until the 19th century.
Also the Black Death was very democratic. Persons of all classes including those of the privileged and wealthy classes died.
The outcomes of the impact from continued global warming or climate change would be similarly democratic. There would be no escape from its outcomes globally for anyone.
In this the outcomes of continued worsening global warming or climate change will resemble the Black Death which was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history in Europe from 1346 to 1353. During that period the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population and substantial populations in other regions of the world, including the Middle East and Asia. This pandemic did not end then as the plague recurred occasionally in Europe until the 19th century.
Also the Black Death was very democratic. Persons of all classes including those of the privileged and wealthy classes died.
The outcomes of the impact from continued global warming or climate change would be similarly democratic. There would be no escape from its outcomes globally for anyone.
6
Just yesterday the NYT had an article, gleefully commented on by many, talking of GOP scare tactics and how bad all of that is. Today we're treated to the top of the page dreck will false equivalencies, dubious histories and another side and version of "the world is doomed by the other" (climate skeptics or immigrants, does it matter?). Yet some lap it up. This piece is not worthy of the Times.
7
Doesn't animal agriculture contribute at least, if not more than fossil fuels, to climate change? Maybe changing our diets is the answer?
3
According to Evangelical Christians, world conflagration is all part of the plan; Armageddon and "rapture". To these folks the next genocide is one more step in the path.
Climate Change denial is simply a ploy to allow unrestricted burning of fossil fuel. To the oil companies and their bankers, fossil fuel in the ground is "money in the bank." Rest assured it will be burned and rest assured we will bring on our own extinction. But the pain and suffering en route to this disaster will dwarf all previous holocausts throughout history.
Climate Change denial is simply a ploy to allow unrestricted burning of fossil fuel. To the oil companies and their bankers, fossil fuel in the ground is "money in the bank." Rest assured it will be burned and rest assured we will bring on our own extinction. But the pain and suffering en route to this disaster will dwarf all previous holocausts throughout history.
5
Forewarned is forearmed: D. Trump does not believe in global warming and climate change, and he also scapegoats immigrants. D. Trump's positions remind me of Hitler's. D. Trump will bring about authoritarianism in America, authoritarianism of white Americans.
6
Genocide or just normal slaughter? At no point in recorded human history has any specific rationale been necessary to murder specific groups (genocide), or populations, (war, invasion). Science denial, now the majority opinion in the US, may count for accelerating the destruction of the planet, but we can kill each other over bread, minerals, petroleum, religion, race or even lies like WMD in Iraq, dominoes in Vietnam, or, keep tuned, possession of a melted Arctic.
Convincing us to kill, on our own turf or elsewhere, is an easy sell. Always has been. The only limit is when we manage to devise and implement the global Final Solution.
Convincing us to kill, on our own turf or elsewhere, is an easy sell. Always has been. The only limit is when we manage to devise and implement the global Final Solution.
10
We are already seeing the results of climate change migration. Syria had many years of drought before the unrest started because the people were hungry. Now we have mass migration into Europe because of the resulting war. The migrations that are a result of climate change are just beginning. The anti-science meme here promoted by the Republicans is remarkably short sighted. Although I understand that from the point of view of the GOP an uneducated populace is much easier to control than an educated one, therefore it is tempting to pursue that idea.
6
Read "Inferno" by Dan Brown. That'll get you thinking. Whatever happened to population control? Forty-five + years ago, when I was a college student the word was out about no more than 2 children per family -- not as a law but as a guideline. We were concerned then and some - the more educated, perhaps - took it to heart. We even joked about allowing ourselves more kids if we adopted or trading off with friends who didn't want to have any. Clearly the idea didn't take hold, nor would it be likely to across the world.
So is the answer in Malthusian theory? Random or intentionally planned? Very scary stuff. Or is it in recognizing that we actually do have space and the ability to feed and care for a lot more people if we spend our money on that along with reducing conspicuous consumption versus exploiting the planet in the short term for a limited number of people? And, of course, also on reducing the effects of climate change and improving how we "manage" planet earth. If you think this is the better answer, then you also must think about who you vote for here and where we should be spending our collective tax dollars as well as what you do with your own money.
So is the answer in Malthusian theory? Random or intentionally planned? Very scary stuff. Or is it in recognizing that we actually do have space and the ability to feed and care for a lot more people if we spend our money on that along with reducing conspicuous consumption versus exploiting the planet in the short term for a limited number of people? And, of course, also on reducing the effects of climate change and improving how we "manage" planet earth. If you think this is the better answer, then you also must think about who you vote for here and where we should be spending our collective tax dollars as well as what you do with your own money.
6
I think, as u have said, the war has already started at a sublime level; In this war there wont b any big loss to the perpetrators and countries like Africa will loose the fruits of its land & keep starving or will b under some food aid programme, as usual. And to keep this going, racial & religious conflicts will b used with the support of local leaders.
3
TEACHER ALERT: Rarely have I seen an article more suitable to use as an important, provocative and timely 'History Lesson' in our high schools and colleges.
A generation often lost in the haze of technology and feel-good, 24/7 entertainment, needs to learn and to know...
A generation often lost in the haze of technology and feel-good, 24/7 entertainment, needs to learn and to know...
9
Thanks - a provocative essay. A couple of ideas. First, looking at drought in the US this year, Canada could come under serious pressure from the US to access our abundant water in the midwest and east. Our autonomy is already threatened by competition for Arctic petro-reserves. Second, here in Canada, denial of science by our government has been a tenet of their strategy to fully exploit tar sands oil from Alberta to Manitoba, irreversibly destroying a major swath the world's boreal forest belt. The strip mining of oil has increased CO2 emissions, squandered energy by requiring natural gas, required substantial water yielding waste that must be held for an indeterminate time in retention ponds and is contaminating watersheds; moving oil to market requires pipelines or train transit through both pristine and urban areas, with a history of serious spills and the terrible explosion at Lac Megantic.
Our Federal Government sees environmental science as a threat. It has silenced and fired environmental scientists, such as our internationally respected marine toxicology unit. They eliminated our mandatory long form census, impeding research toward economic and social policy-making. Our once respected citizenship on climate diplomacy and our scientific endeavor are in disarray - an embarrassment. The prime minister's objective is clearly to silence fact-based, evidence-based science that counters their objectives and should inform policy. https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/
Our Federal Government sees environmental science as a threat. It has silenced and fired environmental scientists, such as our internationally respected marine toxicology unit. They eliminated our mandatory long form census, impeding research toward economic and social policy-making. Our once respected citizenship on climate diplomacy and our scientific endeavor are in disarray - an embarrassment. The prime minister's objective is clearly to silence fact-based, evidence-based science that counters their objectives and should inform policy. https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/
6
Too many people on planet Earth. Until and unless that problem is addressed and solved, all other problems like global warming, 21st century nativism and "lebensraum", will continue to worsen. Certain segments of the population have decreased their birth rate. Others have not. It comes through education. Human kind is much too hardy to succumb to this. The immediate future may be bleak and full of problems. But, as the baby boomers die off, technology and education and communication will increase. Some day humans will control their lives more sanely and efficiently. it is not a straight or easy path.
Fifty years from now the citizens of the USA will look back on the Republican party and the climate science deniers and wonder how in the heck they could be so stupid.
Fifty years from now the citizens of the USA will look back on the Republican party and the climate science deniers and wonder how in the heck they could be so stupid.
8
The fuse is burning; How long is it, I wonder.
5
Hitler's obsession with Jews was about racial purity and their proclaimed harmful influence on culture. Not about Lebensraum - that concerned the Slavs. We should also see Hitlers moves on Lebensraum in the light of his time: the West European countries had their colonies, the US had a semi-colonial relationship with Latin America. According to Hitler Germany's natural backyard with a similar function was Eastern Europe. This tendency was strengthened as by the repair payments that led Germany to develop special relations with countries in Eastern Europe for its raw materials - rather than relying on the world market.
The genocide in Rwanda was a direct result of the advancing Tutsi rebels. Everybody knew that if they won hundreds of thousands of Tutsi exiles would stream south from Uganda and make claims on lands that were now used by other people. The main failure of the West was that nobody saw the risk and acted on it.
As for the future: our main task is maintaining a fair and open market.
The genocide in Rwanda was a direct result of the advancing Tutsi rebels. Everybody knew that if they won hundreds of thousands of Tutsi exiles would stream south from Uganda and make claims on lands that were now used by other people. The main failure of the West was that nobody saw the risk and acted on it.
As for the future: our main task is maintaining a fair and open market.
6
The climate change lobby puts articles in the newspapers to create panic about desertification, lack of water, floods, drought, lack of food etc. when there is not a shred of real evidence that any of this is true. Most of the earth's history has been spent in ice ages lasting 100s of millions of years. These ice ages are punctuated by warming periods lasting a few 1000 years. The entire human civilization started in the current warming period which started 10,000 years ago. There was a cooling trend in Europe between 800 AD and 1200 AD and European civilization slipped into the dark ages. There is no evidence that the current warming trend that started with the industrial resolution is anything but benign. The countries which were basket cases for food supply 50 years ago like Bangladesh and India are self sufficient in food. The climate change lobby is trying to resurrect Malthusian theories that have been debunked time and again. I would fear them more than the Chinese.
3
Very thought provoking. On the subject, another great book "Merchants of Doubt". One only needs to watch the news on PBS to see the problems described here. This is not theoretical. This is real.
Visiting with friends yesterday, "I like Carly for President. She gave an interview and said that global warming is not an immediate problem." This from a man that had 5 children and now has grand children and great grand children. He has been lulled into complacency because of what he hears on Fox News.
The NYTimes and other media companies need to man up and report the truth about climate change and they need to aggressively do it now. The future of the planet and the future of us as a species depend on it.
Visiting with friends yesterday, "I like Carly for President. She gave an interview and said that global warming is not an immediate problem." This from a man that had 5 children and now has grand children and great grand children. He has been lulled into complacency because of what he hears on Fox News.
The NYTimes and other media companies need to man up and report the truth about climate change and they need to aggressively do it now. The future of the planet and the future of us as a species depend on it.
8
One word: GMO. Wider implementation of GMO in agriculture can solve all foreseeable food shortages. Unfortunately, a large proportion of the Western population still ignore academic consensus and oppose the implementation of GMO in the poor world, and popular media is egging them on by demonizing GMO without scientific evidence.
3
I think what's also interesting about this parallel is the use of rabbel-rousing techniques to drum up emotions and fear in the public over these issues. Hitler did this at a time (post Treaty of Versaille) when the German people were susceptible to a leader with grand plans to "make Germany great." This is no different to what certain politicians and business leaders have been doing in the U.S. and continue to do...
4
We must face the fact that the world as we know it cannot support 7 billion people. We will soon have 9 billion people on this planet (2050).
No amount of technology is going to be capable of supporting those numbers.
No amount of technology is going to be capable of supporting those numbers.
9
A perspective that is well worth bringing to light and considering -- and I can't recall when I've encountered it more eloquently. It needn't be entirely persausive on every point to be a loud and clear warning for anyone listening.
7
Linking climate change denial to Hitler, I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant application of Goodwin's Law.
5
Godwin's Law, which postulates enlisting Hitler as an example to support a point of view causes its speaker to immediately lose the argument, seems to suggest we can learn from past mistakes - just not the worst ones.
Nazi atrocities must never be trivialized. They must, however, remain forever cemented in our consciousness, and serve as a reminder when appropriate. If not, we do, indeed, risk going there again.
Nazi atrocities must never be trivialized. They must, however, remain forever cemented in our consciousness, and serve as a reminder when appropriate. If not, we do, indeed, risk going there again.
7
This is precisely why climate change deniers who cite the "high cost" of reducing greenhouse gases start to sound so ridiculous. The cost of business as usual will of course be much, much greater.
2
Of course the Nazis wanted the resources in the sovereign nations they invaded. This has motivated invasions since human beings began making war. This is hardly the revelation that Timothy Snyder is claiming it is.
If, however, Snyder is claiming this was the motivation for the Nazi's war on the Jews, he is simply wrong. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of European Jew hatred that previously took the form of pogroms, forcing the Jews into ghettos, seizing their property, and expelling them. Far from being a rejection of science, the Holocaust embraced a perverted genetics to justify the killing of Jews, the disabled, and others. The Nazis claimed to be protecting their race, as opposed to the earlier religious motivations. Other than the specious motivation, the only thing that distinguishes the Holocaust from prior European attacks on Jews is the scale of the brutality.
I know an author can sell books with an inflammatory challenge to the prevailing view on a topic, but often, as in this instance, that prevailing view is correct.
If, however, Snyder is claiming this was the motivation for the Nazi's war on the Jews, he is simply wrong. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of European Jew hatred that previously took the form of pogroms, forcing the Jews into ghettos, seizing their property, and expelling them. Far from being a rejection of science, the Holocaust embraced a perverted genetics to justify the killing of Jews, the disabled, and others. The Nazis claimed to be protecting their race, as opposed to the earlier religious motivations. Other than the specious motivation, the only thing that distinguishes the Holocaust from prior European attacks on Jews is the scale of the brutality.
I know an author can sell books with an inflammatory challenge to the prevailing view on a topic, but often, as in this instance, that prevailing view is correct.
6
Your point is unremarkable. People have been fighting over resources since the dawn of humanity. Why do you think the Europeans came to the New World and wiped out those who were already here, who themselves were already tens of thousands of years into wars over resources.
Yes, if there is environmental calamity of some sort, some will live and some will die.
By the way, there is nothing inherently better about 7 billion people on the earth instead of 3 billion. Moreover, the 4 billion would most likely not die a sudden and painful death. It's more likely that reproduction rates would decrease, either through infant death or shortened lifespans. Yes, the thousands of years of advancement would be pushed back one hundred to three hundred years (for it was only that long ago that life followed these patterns).
Life was harder in the 17 century, but there is no sign that people were any less happy then than they are today.
Your prognostications are simply not that worrisome.
Yes, if there is environmental calamity of some sort, some will live and some will die.
By the way, there is nothing inherently better about 7 billion people on the earth instead of 3 billion. Moreover, the 4 billion would most likely not die a sudden and painful death. It's more likely that reproduction rates would decrease, either through infant death or shortened lifespans. Yes, the thousands of years of advancement would be pushed back one hundred to three hundred years (for it was only that long ago that life followed these patterns).
Life was harder in the 17 century, but there is no sign that people were any less happy then than they are today.
Your prognostications are simply not that worrisome.
3
Processor Snyder has articulated something about the second world war that nobody else discusses - that it was as much about resources as ideology. Adolf Hitler looked long and hard at the United States in formulating his worldview, and saw a nation that had made itself invulnerable to starvation by conquering an "inferior" people, enslaving another, and in the process acquiring enough fertile land to guarantee it's subsistence. The science of the time was not up to the task of feeding Germany in the event of blockade.
If Europe was blockaded today, it is questionable that it could feed itself even with the aid of scientific improvements in agriculture. Furthermore, the United States is gradually destroying it's croplands through the use of questionable high-yield techniques on the part of corporations who feel no sense of stewardship for the land that they use. Wars and genocides over food and resources are indeed a very real possibility in our future if we do nothing to prevent them.
If Europe was blockaded today, it is questionable that it could feed itself even with the aid of scientific improvements in agriculture. Furthermore, the United States is gradually destroying it's croplands through the use of questionable high-yield techniques on the part of corporations who feel no sense of stewardship for the land that they use. Wars and genocides over food and resources are indeed a very real possibility in our future if we do nothing to prevent them.
5
The Holocaust was caused by an excess of hate, not a shortage of resources. Let's stop looking for rational answers to the existence of evil in the world.
4
The same could be associated with US and UK invading other countries for oil......yes, there are various ways to invade....destroy democracy....install a Shah, Batista.....controls the media...like here.
1
Global warming fanatics, adherents to Hitler's Lebensraum, advocates of Malthusianism, along with fear-mongering Luddites, all share in common a doom-and-gloom pessimism that denies mankind's ability to adapt and thrive.
Yes, it is through science and technology, coupled with vision and forethought, that mankind will overcome today's hurdles and limitations, whatever they might be.
The author fails to see the irony in his own protestations.
Yes, it is through science and technology, coupled with vision and forethought, that mankind will overcome today's hurdles and limitations, whatever they might be.
The author fails to see the irony in his own protestations.
3
Population increases in a world with a finite supply of arable land (and collapsing stocks of harvest-able sea life) combined with technological advances in weaponry and force projection . . . we don't need to bring Hitler into it to see the problems that lie ahead of us.
A partial solution may be found in Africa, as this article says, but it is a reduction of Africa's birthrates, not an expansion of its food production, that we need.
A partial solution may be found in Africa, as this article says, but it is a reduction of Africa's birthrates, not an expansion of its food production, that we need.
6
In the not-so-distant past, colonists settled in North America, where conflicts between the native populations and invading Europeans culminated in warfare, followed by organized genocide and displacement of the original Americans.
There may be no people who would not practice genocide given anxiety over resources; this aspect of human group behavior has been repeated throughout the past -- we can anticipate it will be practiced in the future.
How can nations promote internal, peaceable, and cooperative solutions to perceived conflicts over resources?
There may be no people who would not practice genocide given anxiety over resources; this aspect of human group behavior has been repeated throughout the past -- we can anticipate it will be practiced in the future.
How can nations promote internal, peaceable, and cooperative solutions to perceived conflicts over resources?
1
The TIMES and most of the rest of the leftwing media also have an ideology and have pushed it relentlessly via the migrant crisis. Basically, that ideological narrative is that as Europe has been far more successful than Africa and the Middle East over the last 1,000 years, emerging far earlier into democracy, women's emancipation, legal equality for homosexuals, it should now surrender that success to invasion from North and sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East can invade, carte blanche, and if (speaking of genocide) the result is the marginalization of those successful cultures and the descendants of those who built them, ironically ensuring domination in 100 years by a far more backward, misogynist, homophobic, religion that shapes its community's law, politics, schooling, and social structure, not just its religious practice - so what?
There are all kinds of genocide. This isn't a choice between science and ideology: this is a fight for resources, culture, and self-determination. The EU is in danger because its high-flying platitudes took no account of human nature and when the stuff hit the fan, turned dictatorial while covertly serving the same global corporatists for whom climate change, the chaos of migration and collapsing national cultures and welfare systems, represent massive profit opportunities.
Follow the money.
There are all kinds of genocide. This isn't a choice between science and ideology: this is a fight for resources, culture, and self-determination. The EU is in danger because its high-flying platitudes took no account of human nature and when the stuff hit the fan, turned dictatorial while covertly serving the same global corporatists for whom climate change, the chaos of migration and collapsing national cultures and welfare systems, represent massive profit opportunities.
Follow the money.
6
There was a recent article in the journal Science that found that large animal predators' numbers are limited, not by the quantity of prey available, but by the rate at which prey reproduce.
In other words, there is an apparent built in "only increase ones' numbers until a sustainability limit is reached" function in large animal prey.
One might suggest this characteristic is missing in humans as even with resource shortages the author has written, "especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living."
Migration is not improving resource consumption as apparently new migrants want the higher consumption lifestyle of developed nations.
The author seems to offer some hope for humankind as he closes with "Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?"
How does he know that "new energy technologies" CAN scale to the ever increasing numbers of humans who want a better (and more consumptive) lifestyle.
A third possibility certainly exists, we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies AND also have a wave of ecological panic in the world.
In other words, there is an apparent built in "only increase ones' numbers until a sustainability limit is reached" function in large animal prey.
One might suggest this characteristic is missing in humans as even with resource shortages the author has written, "especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living."
Migration is not improving resource consumption as apparently new migrants want the higher consumption lifestyle of developed nations.
The author seems to offer some hope for humankind as he closes with "Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?"
How does he know that "new energy technologies" CAN scale to the ever increasing numbers of humans who want a better (and more consumptive) lifestyle.
A third possibility certainly exists, we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies AND also have a wave of ecological panic in the world.
3
There are several parallels of our current situation to history. The Nazi experience does come to mind as some aspects of it seem to be replicated today - not least of which is the denial of a catastrophic humanitarian crisis.
Definitely worth taking into account when making decisions today.
Definitely worth taking into account when making decisions today.
2
Hitler was more of a science worshipper than a science denier. He was a fanatical about "survival of the fittest" and put that philosophy into the school books. Nazism was part technocracy. Lindbergh admired that part. Hitler's desire for more agricultural land resulted from the starvation endured by Germans, Belgians, and Eastern Europeans because of the Allied blockade during and several months after World War I.
2
The author makes two assumptions that diminish the seriousness of our situation:
1) the assumption that science can fix the mess we've created
2) the assumption that the human species can survive the coming changes
Ignoring these possibilities increases our peril.
1) the assumption that science can fix the mess we've created
2) the assumption that the human species can survive the coming changes
Ignoring these possibilities increases our peril.
1
This article introduces a sinister note into the campaign to vilify the remaining few who still question climate change orthodoxy. It would be nice to think that those who use the term "denier" to characterize their opponents do not consider where this distinctive label comes from. But it requires little thought to see it as an attempt to transfer some of the odium from the unrelated term "Holocaust Denier".
Now we have a more direct way to link deviant thought to terrible outcomes. After some dabbling in historical Nazi horrors, it suggests that the "deniers" will have to accept responsibility for future holocausts resulting from climate change.
Do the supporters of this strategy believe that it will produce any conversions among those who are not yet on their side?
Now we have a more direct way to link deviant thought to terrible outcomes. After some dabbling in historical Nazi horrors, it suggests that the "deniers" will have to accept responsibility for future holocausts resulting from climate change.
Do the supporters of this strategy believe that it will produce any conversions among those who are not yet on their side?
4
The author points out many plausible scenarios. As a confimred Realist and a student of history unfortunately two current circumstances of major importance should come as no surprise. One is a major war in the Middle East. Rule by the British and French Empires followed by US intervention have only delayed Muslims from obtaing some variation of the Ottoman Empire. Russia is not about to fall from being a world power and subject themselves to Nato dominance. China is yet to complete a major major military to rule Asia and feed their billion plus population. The US is in a phase of no particular foreighn policy, and has turned in the Worlds Policemens badge. We disliked the Bush Doctrine of acting first when our interest are insecure. Our adversaries understand our new policies and are acting accordingly.
1
Great piece, but missing the most fundamental point: we have too many humans consuming too many resources. This is not sustainable.
Modern health care now keeps most children alive in countries where the cultural norms are to have perhaps up to a dozen children.
India, China, most of Latin America, and the Middle East all have the problem of producing too many children.
While this is not an 'ethnic' problem, it is certainly fundamentally a cultural/religious problem and while overpopulation was once considered a very serious issue it is now never discussed owing to the perceived lack of political correctness.
We've already trashed the oceans and the vast majority of (mostly formerly) high producing arable land is now effectively sterile without fertilizers and/or in jeopardy owing to diminishing water supplies.
And yet the babies keep popping out.
Disturbing, and seemingly inevitable, and governments and politicians need to stop shying away from criticizing religions for their absolutist positions on the sanctity of any life capable of being produced.
Modern health care now keeps most children alive in countries where the cultural norms are to have perhaps up to a dozen children.
India, China, most of Latin America, and the Middle East all have the problem of producing too many children.
While this is not an 'ethnic' problem, it is certainly fundamentally a cultural/religious problem and while overpopulation was once considered a very serious issue it is now never discussed owing to the perceived lack of political correctness.
We've already trashed the oceans and the vast majority of (mostly formerly) high producing arable land is now effectively sterile without fertilizers and/or in jeopardy owing to diminishing water supplies.
And yet the babies keep popping out.
Disturbing, and seemingly inevitable, and governments and politicians need to stop shying away from criticizing religions for their absolutist positions on the sanctity of any life capable of being produced.
9
I think that you are cherry picking to support your contention. You NAZI allusions are quite strained and are Godwinesque. I suggest that the mass migration of people who whose presence will be a net drain on the abilities of the West to support them will be the main factor in Europe's inabilityability to combat warming. Everything has a cost and this seeming good act will not go unpunished.
I see that there is discussion of "climate debt". Lets be clear here, while the US and others contributed, the wild levels of procreation in the third world contribute to the humanitarian crisis. It is reasonable for the west to control their profligate energy use and dispersal of pollutants, it is equally reasonable to expect the third world to get their populations under control.
I see that there is discussion of "climate debt". Lets be clear here, while the US and others contributed, the wild levels of procreation in the third world contribute to the humanitarian crisis. It is reasonable for the west to control their profligate energy use and dispersal of pollutants, it is equally reasonable to expect the third world to get their populations under control.
5
Don't squeeze the multifaceted hatred, xenophobia, paranoia and antisemitic European history that enabled the Holocaust into one convenient detail of Hitler's ravings in order to promote a particular agenda. Don't do it under the guise of preventing the next Holocaust. Don't do it under any guise at all. It's offensive. It minimizes the causes of the Holocaust and minimizes the lessons that can be learned for the future.
If Hitler would have had every piece of land and food on earth to start with he still would have pursued his agenda of killing every Jew. He made that immensely clear.
He wanted to crush the Jewish spirit. The deviant, anti-Darwinian notion that the weak should be protected by the strong- instead of despised and crushed by them. Not just in ecology, but in every facet of life.
Who carries this spirit? He recognized something that is highly relevant to today; the day before the Jewish New Year. Something we should not have to be reminded of by our oppressors:
"If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.”
- Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse, p. 122; from a conversation with General Kvaternik, July 21, 1941
If Hitler would have had every piece of land and food on earth to start with he still would have pursued his agenda of killing every Jew. He made that immensely clear.
He wanted to crush the Jewish spirit. The deviant, anti-Darwinian notion that the weak should be protected by the strong- instead of despised and crushed by them. Not just in ecology, but in every facet of life.
Who carries this spirit? He recognized something that is highly relevant to today; the day before the Jewish New Year. Something we should not have to be reminded of by our oppressors:
"If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.”
- Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse, p. 122; from a conversation with General Kvaternik, July 21, 1941
6
As Hitler scapegoated the Jews for Germany's problems, think about what some in this country are doing regarding scapegoating Latinos and other immigrants. How far removed from this type of disaster is America?
3
Timothy Snyder over-simplifies the roots of the Holocaust by trying to link it to Lebensraum and in so doing, inverts cause and effect. Antisemitism in Europe predated Hitler by centuries. For example, Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published in 1903. Antisemitism was the root--Lebensraum and "racial purity" were the rationalizations. Snyder also ignores the economic effects of World War I on Germany, Germany's "wounded national pride," and the Great Depression. Racial bigotry and xenophobia in the U.S. are not really based on concern about resources, but cynical politicians are only too happy to make the same types of appeals to fears about "racial purity" or job loss. Prof. Snyder may have a point, but his argument is weakened by his insistence on downplaying the importance of history, racism and politics.
151
While I agree with the basic point about choosing between ideology and scientific knowledge, Prof. Snyder's analysis is anachronistic and mistaken. The Nazi world-view had little in common with modern ecological concerns.
1) The Nazi obsession with Lebensraum was predicated in good part by a Social Darwinist preoccupation with the need for population growth. In the ferociously racist world-view, further population growth was needed to avoid the extinction of the German "Race."
2) While the Nazis were enamored with aspects of modern technology, they had a typically Romantic rejection of modern, "deracinated," urban life in favor of more "authentic" rural life. Their grotesque plans for Eastern Europe included a huge expansion of what they thought of as traditional peasant smallholdings.
3) Food security was a major strategic problem for Germany. A major factor in German defeat in WWI was the stranglehold of the Allied blockade. In the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between the Central Powers and the new Soviet state, the Germans were awarded control of the Ukraine. In 1918, the Germans had large numbers of troops occupying the Ukraine, at a time when they were short of manpower on the Western Front. The Nazi leadership was haunted by the experience of WWI.
None of this in any way resembles modern ecological concerns and Prof. Snyder's claim about Hitler being driven by "ecological panic" is simply not relevant.
1) The Nazi obsession with Lebensraum was predicated in good part by a Social Darwinist preoccupation with the need for population growth. In the ferociously racist world-view, further population growth was needed to avoid the extinction of the German "Race."
2) While the Nazis were enamored with aspects of modern technology, they had a typically Romantic rejection of modern, "deracinated," urban life in favor of more "authentic" rural life. Their grotesque plans for Eastern Europe included a huge expansion of what they thought of as traditional peasant smallholdings.
3) Food security was a major strategic problem for Germany. A major factor in German defeat in WWI was the stranglehold of the Allied blockade. In the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between the Central Powers and the new Soviet state, the Germans were awarded control of the Ukraine. In 1918, the Germans had large numbers of troops occupying the Ukraine, at a time when they were short of manpower on the Western Front. The Nazi leadership was haunted by the experience of WWI.
None of this in any way resembles modern ecological concerns and Prof. Snyder's claim about Hitler being driven by "ecological panic" is simply not relevant.
3
The future already looks so bleak to me that I don't want to bring any child of mine into it.
3
Humans cannot shift to a renewable energy-based economy soon enough. The 'economies' of all other living systems on the planet do it already, proving the possibilities of sustainable living, even for a biological creature of such extraordinary dominance within the ecosphere.
As for the looming carnage, I think Charles Frazier put it best in his novel, Cold Mountain, when he spoke of war as the crossfire between incompatible economies. In other words, war is a feature, not a bug, of human economy.
As for the looming carnage, I think Charles Frazier put it best in his novel, Cold Mountain, when he spoke of war as the crossfire between incompatible economies. In other words, war is a feature, not a bug, of human economy.
4
This is a new one. A panicky jeremiad about the possibility of panic about food scarcity. No hint that world grain production is at an all time high: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/ There are enough problems out there to solve before inventing new ones.
Climate change is very dangerous, but it is not causing the problems in Africa. The Sahel region of Africa is one of the regions that benefit rather than suffer from climate change, as rainfall has increased. Africa's problems are entirely a result of population growth. In 1900, Europe had 3 times as many people as Africa and the Middle East combined. Now Africa alone has 50% more people than Europe and in 2100, it may have 4 billion people, 6 times Europe's population. Europe cannot accommodate Africa's overflow, no matter what happens to the climate.
6
A more vicious and but publicly approved genocide is taking place in Yemen, and in murdering people in Syria, Iraq, Libya and forcing the rest of people to leave their countries. This is the outcome of violently invading other countries and facilitating the movement of terrorists to these countries. The perpetrators of these tragic events like Cheney, Fieth, Wolfowitz, and McCain, among others, are not only free but are praised for waging war and destruction.
2
I haven't seen an explanation for the Holocaust before attributed to ecological factors but it makes sense that it played a roll. Clearly economic factors played an important part. Germany was in a worse situation than the U.S. during the depression. Today we have ecological and economic factors brewing a perfect storm. Our drive toward growth and resource extraction is now being matched by China and Russia. Increasing inequality drives the madness of those who have plenty to take even more, while those without clinge to xenophobia and blame the even less fortunate. The rise of ISIS in the Middle East, facists in Europe, and White Supremicists in the U.S. are all symptoms of this insanity. This doesn't have to inevitable, if we recognize the science of Climate Change and the realities of a failed economic system we can change it. But time is running out.
5
It is true that America has contributed way more than its' share of greenhouse gas, but it is also true that most of the rest of the world has contributed way more than its' share of population; neither of the these conditions will be easily to corrected but both are too large a part of a solution to ignore. However, overpopulation seems to be getting ignored.
3
The Final Solution was accelerated due to food scarcity. German agronomists predicted Poland would yield a surplus of 250,000 metric tons of food, but due to ironically settlements of incompetent displaced Germans from the Baltics and Bessarabia upon ethnic cleansed Polish land the actual value was a debit of 150,000 metric tons. German solution, echoing Mr. Snyder, is production could not be increased, so only solution was elimination of "useless mouths". And the useless mouths were first European Jews who could not work, then European Jews as is.
4
It seems you miss the elephant in the room. Both Africa and the Middle East have been experiencing large population increases compared to much of the rest of the world. This explains a good portion of their problems. There are other issues as well, religious wars and environmental degradation, but population increases may lead the list.
8
Most humans are simply unable to get over their own ignorance and hatred.
In the antebellum South, married, white Christian slave owners had non-consensual sex with their female slaves for the purpose of pleasure and creating children who were also their slaves. Not only did most whites, north and south, NOT want to fight to free the slaves, but in the South today many white still celebrate this heritage. The end of slavery was almost an unintended consequence of the war.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Turk Muslims massacred hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Greeks (and a million Armenians). All were Christians, the Greeks were also Europeans. But they were not the right kind of Christians. So Catholic-Protestant Europe stood by and did nothing.
And in Europe, European Christians of al; types, inspired by centuries of fables about wicked European Jews and a church teaching as every Jew ever born was responsible for killing Jesus, murdered European Jews by the millions. No one intervened to end the Holocaust. Its end was an unintended consequence of WWII.
Thus, the idea that Europeans (and Americans) will intervene to save non-European Muslims from being murdered by other non-European Muslims does not seem very likely...although in this case, Europe will probably be forced to accept the inconvenience of refugees...to save Europe.
In the antebellum South, married, white Christian slave owners had non-consensual sex with their female slaves for the purpose of pleasure and creating children who were also their slaves. Not only did most whites, north and south, NOT want to fight to free the slaves, but in the South today many white still celebrate this heritage. The end of slavery was almost an unintended consequence of the war.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Turk Muslims massacred hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Greeks (and a million Armenians). All were Christians, the Greeks were also Europeans. But they were not the right kind of Christians. So Catholic-Protestant Europe stood by and did nothing.
And in Europe, European Christians of al; types, inspired by centuries of fables about wicked European Jews and a church teaching as every Jew ever born was responsible for killing Jesus, murdered European Jews by the millions. No one intervened to end the Holocaust. Its end was an unintended consequence of WWII.
Thus, the idea that Europeans (and Americans) will intervene to save non-European Muslims from being murdered by other non-European Muslims does not seem very likely...although in this case, Europe will probably be forced to accept the inconvenience of refugees...to save Europe.
7
Among friends who differ in political outlook, we have a rule that the first one who invokes Hitler or the Nazi's automatically loses. This essay, however, causes me to reassess that rule. Until we face these uncomfortable truths, we will be subject to, and victims of, those very same truths. Never has the call for rationalism and clear thinking be louder. Will enough of us hear? Let's hope so.
3
Is there any such thing as a clear and simple solution to what lies ahead for humanity? Many of us see what is rapidly happening around us in a surrealistic slow motion. Even a great country as our own with all our intellectual might cannot face the issue head on. Climate change will change the world and the world order in the next few decades that none of us today will even be able to imagine. Some will fare better and some will fare worse, but it WILL affect everyone.
1
Let's get real here. The new refugees have Arab/ Moslem support. The Jews didn't. They'll never protest a dead Jew child but the would a dead Moslem child. 1 Jewish country how many Moslem countries. No comparison do you see bds doing anything to support a dead Jew or is it that they want all Jews dead. Hitler first went after economic ability to thrive confiscating jobs. Bds does the same thing. Fascism is still fascism
3
Wars over lack of resources will likely increase given how fast population growth is exploding in the middle east, africa and parts of Asia. Syria has gone from 4.5 to 23 million since 1960. Iraq from 7.3 to 33.4 million in the same period. Ethiopia from 22 to 94 million!! Pakistan from 45 to 182!!! This is what happens when women don't have control over their bodies!!
e need to understand and live with the fact that the earth has limits. You can't sustain infinite human population growth and have a high quality life---we live on a finite planet.
The European nations have spent the last 70 years organizing themselves nicely under the umbrella of US protection. They stabilized their populations and focused on giving their citizens decent lives. People in Africa and the Middle East see that and want it for themselves.
The crush of humanity is just beginning. Population growth is accelerating despite war. The number one focus needs to be on giving women control over their bodies and establishing a worldwide norm of 1 or 2 kids per woman. Otherwise the future will be incredibly horrible as we strip the earth bare and fight over dwindling resources.
e need to understand and live with the fact that the earth has limits. You can't sustain infinite human population growth and have a high quality life---we live on a finite planet.
The European nations have spent the last 70 years organizing themselves nicely under the umbrella of US protection. They stabilized their populations and focused on giving their citizens decent lives. People in Africa and the Middle East see that and want it for themselves.
The crush of humanity is just beginning. Population growth is accelerating despite war. The number one focus needs to be on giving women control over their bodies and establishing a worldwide norm of 1 or 2 kids per woman. Otherwise the future will be incredibly horrible as we strip the earth bare and fight over dwindling resources.
10
If it's not a fight for water, food, and resources, it's a struggle for preserving one's ethnic or cultural identity. Consider Israel's vast nuclear superiority and military might, coupled with fears that anyone else in the region even remotely comes close to their military capabilities. Their neighbors live in fear of Israel's might - while Israel lives in fear of the actions their neighbors take due to those same fears. It's a vicious cycle with no winners.
Russia is doing it's thing too. They have combined both types of fears: resource access and cultural identity to validate their Ukrainian takeover. It's really been about sea ports, oil, and agriculture all along, regardless of whatever flag waving justification is used.
Meanwhile, in the US, we have presidential candidates who think that war is good for their relationship with their Bibles - whether it is some type of Book Of Revelations or "End Of Days" Foreign Policy. We have a LOT of ever growing weirdness that is torquing the screws of our Engine Of War too. Fortunately, we have a chance to turn back. At least on our end, we have an election coming up that will largely determine whether warmongering Bible waving Neocons or cooler, rational heads will prevail. The last thing this power keg world needs is a war giddy US tossing matches in tinder dry regions of the world....
Russia is doing it's thing too. They have combined both types of fears: resource access and cultural identity to validate their Ukrainian takeover. It's really been about sea ports, oil, and agriculture all along, regardless of whatever flag waving justification is used.
Meanwhile, in the US, we have presidential candidates who think that war is good for their relationship with their Bibles - whether it is some type of Book Of Revelations or "End Of Days" Foreign Policy. We have a LOT of ever growing weirdness that is torquing the screws of our Engine Of War too. Fortunately, we have a chance to turn back. At least on our end, we have an election coming up that will largely determine whether warmongering Bible waving Neocons or cooler, rational heads will prevail. The last thing this power keg world needs is a war giddy US tossing matches in tinder dry regions of the world....
3
Mr. Synder does a very good job laying out a basic human truth, that truth being that the ultimate function of all political systems is the division of finite resources. With the effects of global climate change, the division of resources will only become more important, and I am thankful to Mr. Snyder for describing some of the possible conflicts that may await us. However, I can't help thinking that the comparison with Hitler and the Holocaust is unnecessary and sensationalist. Yes there may be some associative relationship there, but couldn't we make the same arguement with Stalin, or Pol Pot, or frontier America as we "cleared" the land of Native Americans ?
I agree there may be a good book about reunderstanding the holocaust, but frankly using that reference in this article about climate change weakens the intellectual integrity of Mr. Synder's arguement, at least for me.
I agree there may be a good book about reunderstanding the holocaust, but frankly using that reference in this article about climate change weakens the intellectual integrity of Mr. Synder's arguement, at least for me.
2
This article is well intended but dances around the idea that it could happen here in the good old USA. Today, our country has festering problems with antisemitism, people of color and immigration. As a non practicing 77 year old Jew, I've heard many times in my life that the Jews control the USA and approximate between 35-40 % of our population. The uninformed and uneducated among us, which is a large segment of our population, think that the African American community present a criminal and moral danger. They also think that the country is overrun with illegal immigrants which actually represent slightly more than 3% of us. These are not bi-partisan issues and are primarily advocated by the GOP. We live in very dangerous times and next year we have an opportunity to alter our rancid political landscape by voting for candidates who believe in science, fairness and doing the work for the American people instead of their donors. In other words, vote Democratic.
4
Saying that the U.S. is "the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s...THE European Union, by contrast, takes global warming very seriously, but its existence is under threat," Timothy Snyder presents the reader with evidence that something's gone wrong in America. The reader should be shown the underpinnings of this "intellectual stance."
Arthur Koestler wondered in the memoirs of his early life, Arrow in the Blue, how the best-read nation on Earth - more newspapers sold in Germany, per capita, in the late 1920s, than anywhere else - could go so wrong.
“It is always the Jew,” argued Hitler, “who seeks and succeeds in implanting such lethal ways of thinking.” And "the relation of Marxism to the Jews was submitted (by him) to further thorough examination," he wrote, concluding the chapter on "Germany's Attitude Toward Marxism": "In the years 1913 and 1914, I...expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
George Johnson's essay this weekend wonders at the dominance of faith in the face of scientific method's successes, in the last half-century. Could we hear more about that in the country where it's apparently most needed ?
Arthur Koestler wondered in the memoirs of his early life, Arrow in the Blue, how the best-read nation on Earth - more newspapers sold in Germany, per capita, in the late 1920s, than anywhere else - could go so wrong.
“It is always the Jew,” argued Hitler, “who seeks and succeeds in implanting such lethal ways of thinking.” And "the relation of Marxism to the Jews was submitted (by him) to further thorough examination," he wrote, concluding the chapter on "Germany's Attitude Toward Marxism": "In the years 1913 and 1914, I...expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
George Johnson's essay this weekend wonders at the dominance of faith in the face of scientific method's successes, in the last half-century. Could we hear more about that in the country where it's apparently most needed ?
3
"The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science."
Such a disturbing article because so many of its hypotheses, from China to Russia to Europe and the Middle East ring true. And it starts with creating alternate views of the universe, which we certainly see here in the US in our body politic, as well as outside (Syria, anyone?).
Much is made of Hitler's particular brand of evil, and I'd point out that evil is a pretty constant feature of human life, that unfortunately, left unchecked, can produce disastrous results. There is nothing more evil than an inherently scared society responding to demagogues and their alternate brand of reality as I mentioned before. Just as evil is inherent in some men, self-survival and panic over the thought of scarce resources brings out the worst in man. Does anyone remember the bomb shelter issues of the Cold War, where a Twilight Zone episode turned neighbor against neighbor as those with shelters armed themselves to kill on contact lest anyone invade their space?
We're also seeing this scared, "me first" attitude that forms part of the great appeal of Trump, who trades on fear and dwindling resources--the haves and those who would "Steal" from them.
Things usually go wrong when too many people become convinced, and scared by the prospect of losing what they have. I for one am firmly convinced "it can happen here" and will, unless we come to our collective senses about the truth of science.
Such a disturbing article because so many of its hypotheses, from China to Russia to Europe and the Middle East ring true. And it starts with creating alternate views of the universe, which we certainly see here in the US in our body politic, as well as outside (Syria, anyone?).
Much is made of Hitler's particular brand of evil, and I'd point out that evil is a pretty constant feature of human life, that unfortunately, left unchecked, can produce disastrous results. There is nothing more evil than an inherently scared society responding to demagogues and their alternate brand of reality as I mentioned before. Just as evil is inherent in some men, self-survival and panic over the thought of scarce resources brings out the worst in man. Does anyone remember the bomb shelter issues of the Cold War, where a Twilight Zone episode turned neighbor against neighbor as those with shelters armed themselves to kill on contact lest anyone invade their space?
We're also seeing this scared, "me first" attitude that forms part of the great appeal of Trump, who trades on fear and dwindling resources--the haves and those who would "Steal" from them.
Things usually go wrong when too many people become convinced, and scared by the prospect of losing what they have. I for one am firmly convinced "it can happen here" and will, unless we come to our collective senses about the truth of science.
4
Denial of science is manifest in irrational fear of GMO food, completely unsupported by scientific observation. Paradoxically, this superstitious rejection of the primary means of adaptation of food production to climate change appears to be most common where the conviction that the models of future climate change are settled unquestionable science. The belief that it is possible for man to adapt to anthropogenic global warming by universal human cooperation in denying ourselves access to resources is supported by absolutely no science of human behavior at all, yet is driving much of the politics. In short, no side has a monopoly on irrational self-defeating wishful thinking.
We have an exponentially greater chance of averting the catastrophe of famine induced conflict by putting our resources into GMO and other agricultural sciences than into efforts to achieve universal cooperation in self-denial of resource exploitation. The former solution is characteristic of human beings. The latter would require transformation of the nature of our species.
We have an exponentially greater chance of averting the catastrophe of famine induced conflict by putting our resources into GMO and other agricultural sciences than into efforts to achieve universal cooperation in self-denial of resource exploitation. The former solution is characteristic of human beings. The latter would require transformation of the nature of our species.
2
Prevention is usually the best way to handle any problem. In this case it seems that overpopulation is the underlying culprit for the "problems." Of course restrictions are out of the question in a democratic country so there is no easy answer. One thing that would make me feel better is to quit congratulating and glorifying people who have overly large families. I guess I should also add diet to the mix - being a vegan (no meat, no dairy) uses way fewer resources than being a meat eater.
4
I find this article extremely interesting, yet frightening. I can see the danger signs and the direction it is leading. We all need to work toward correcting the problem and not worry so much about the symptoms.
4
Perhaps a bit overdrawn and Malthusian.
The Jews held no land resources, the holocaust was about antisemitism which Hitler and his fellows exploited. And the German invasion(s) both west and east were about power for the German people, not just resources. What, they wanted to take the Gauloises from the French? Was the theft of art and gold done out of ecological panic. I don't think so.
In WW 2 the Germans wanted and needed oil. The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere resulted from Japan's quest for oil and other resources. These conquests weren't born out of ecological panic. Both Germany and Japan sought the resources of the modern world to attain hegemony.
And Napoleon? Invaded Russia because he wanted Siberia? Of course countries and peoples will fight over resources , sometimes out of desperation, sometimes for wealth. And certainly any kind of ecological disaster could spur warfare and attempts to wipe each other out.
But to hold up the death's head and chant climate change is perhaps extreme. Let's say the climate gets a little warmer? Ecological disaster? Or more arable land? The truth is, we can only guess at the long term effects of CC.
Modern technology and carbon energy have allowed us to feed the masses. How many more people can be provided for? Billions more, I'm willing to bet.
But the author fails to acknowledge that science will find ways to feed our growing population, but history argues it will. So who is denying science?
The Jews held no land resources, the holocaust was about antisemitism which Hitler and his fellows exploited. And the German invasion(s) both west and east were about power for the German people, not just resources. What, they wanted to take the Gauloises from the French? Was the theft of art and gold done out of ecological panic. I don't think so.
In WW 2 the Germans wanted and needed oil. The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere resulted from Japan's quest for oil and other resources. These conquests weren't born out of ecological panic. Both Germany and Japan sought the resources of the modern world to attain hegemony.
And Napoleon? Invaded Russia because he wanted Siberia? Of course countries and peoples will fight over resources , sometimes out of desperation, sometimes for wealth. And certainly any kind of ecological disaster could spur warfare and attempts to wipe each other out.
But to hold up the death's head and chant climate change is perhaps extreme. Let's say the climate gets a little warmer? Ecological disaster? Or more arable land? The truth is, we can only guess at the long term effects of CC.
Modern technology and carbon energy have allowed us to feed the masses. How many more people can be provided for? Billions more, I'm willing to bet.
But the author fails to acknowledge that science will find ways to feed our growing population, but history argues it will. So who is denying science?
7
I love the toughness of Dr. Snyder, his willingness to speak this truth amidst the omnicidal stupidity, the often obscene and deadly frivolity of how our monetary-code dominated culture interfaces with reality. Props to the NYT for running it.
"Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture.” E. O. Wilson
From an interview I did with the brilliant geneticist Bruce Lahn in 2006, asking if the Darwinian perspective might make him ruthless:
"I ask that question to myself all the time. It’s a very profound, important question. I ask myself that question because from a Darwinian point of view, to understand how the system works, I have to step away and look at it dispassionately. I cannot look at it from a right and wrong, moral perspective. At the end of the day it’s competition for survival, for resources. And if a brutal human phenomenon such as genocide can be explained in the context of that, so be it. That’s how it is. Does that make me no longer sensitive to all these important values, the values of equality and compassion? I think it doesn’t."
The large and rapid restructuring of non-equilbrium systems -- self-organized criticality -- is part of the physics repertoire of said systems, just as genocide is part of the genetic repertoire.
"Knowledge is a constructor." David Deutsch. Knowledge can forestall self-organized criticality.
Read interviews with Dr. Lahn, Dr. Wilson, & 6 Concepts 4 Survival here:
http://postgenetic.com
"Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture.” E. O. Wilson
From an interview I did with the brilliant geneticist Bruce Lahn in 2006, asking if the Darwinian perspective might make him ruthless:
"I ask that question to myself all the time. It’s a very profound, important question. I ask myself that question because from a Darwinian point of view, to understand how the system works, I have to step away and look at it dispassionately. I cannot look at it from a right and wrong, moral perspective. At the end of the day it’s competition for survival, for resources. And if a brutal human phenomenon such as genocide can be explained in the context of that, so be it. That’s how it is. Does that make me no longer sensitive to all these important values, the values of equality and compassion? I think it doesn’t."
The large and rapid restructuring of non-equilbrium systems -- self-organized criticality -- is part of the physics repertoire of said systems, just as genocide is part of the genetic repertoire.
"Knowledge is a constructor." David Deutsch. Knowledge can forestall self-organized criticality.
Read interviews with Dr. Lahn, Dr. Wilson, & 6 Concepts 4 Survival here:
http://postgenetic.com
5
This brilliant thesis is incomplete, and hence raises questions of the content validity of this argument, if American hysteria over energy remains unaccounted. We did kill a lot of people in Iraq over our concern for oil (in 1991 and since 2003). Coupled with our unmitigated fear that we will not have the energy needed to sustain our way of, we have called the Saudis our friends. Unlike Hitler who took over Ukraine, we cajole this terror regime out of our own fears. No other nation is more responsible for global terrorism (Al Queda, ISIL, Hamas), the proliferation of violent, jihadi Islam, the proliferation of mosques with Saudi clerics that preach a stern Wahabism - then Saudi Arabia. The fear and loathing that characterizes us today has nothing to do with agricultural production or with climate change; it has everything to do with our intensely corrupt dynasties such as the family Bush, and Messrs. Cheney and our fear that without the Saudis, we will run out of energy.
Similarly, this thesis is incomplete without an account of deep seated American hysteria over issues of race. The morbid fear that our children will sit next to a Hispanic, Black, or Asian child, the irrational fear that assistance to the poor will help a Hispanic or Black, has transformed into a retail politics of hate. "Let's deport Hispanics, deprive Blacks of any means of existence, so we may live with our guns and bibles" is the rallying cry of FOX and the American right.
Kalidan
Similarly, this thesis is incomplete without an account of deep seated American hysteria over issues of race. The morbid fear that our children will sit next to a Hispanic, Black, or Asian child, the irrational fear that assistance to the poor will help a Hispanic or Black, has transformed into a retail politics of hate. "Let's deport Hispanics, deprive Blacks of any means of existence, so we may live with our guns and bibles" is the rallying cry of FOX and the American right.
Kalidan
5
I'd like to put several direct questions to Mr. Snyder.
First, didn't we follow the same "lebensraum" playbook ourselves, using the German playbook from 1933-41, redrafted for an American population largely ignorant of European 20th-century history by the Project for the New American Century (1997-2000) and made fact by the resultant CheneyBush administration. This started with 9/11, which was used as a pretext for the "USA PATRIOT" Act which had been drafted prior to that time and intended to destroy our Constitutional democracy, and then used as the excuse for a war based on lies to seize control of Iraqi oil for the net benefit of an oil-services company in which our then vice president held (and holds) major stockholdings?
Wasn't Romney's "47%" comment code for somehow eliminating 150 million Americans through malign neglect? Doesn't THAT qualify as genocide without the analytical trimmings of genocide and struggle for resources?
First, didn't we follow the same "lebensraum" playbook ourselves, using the German playbook from 1933-41, redrafted for an American population largely ignorant of European 20th-century history by the Project for the New American Century (1997-2000) and made fact by the resultant CheneyBush administration. This started with 9/11, which was used as a pretext for the "USA PATRIOT" Act which had been drafted prior to that time and intended to destroy our Constitutional democracy, and then used as the excuse for a war based on lies to seize control of Iraqi oil for the net benefit of an oil-services company in which our then vice president held (and holds) major stockholdings?
Wasn't Romney's "47%" comment code for somehow eliminating 150 million Americans through malign neglect? Doesn't THAT qualify as genocide without the analytical trimmings of genocide and struggle for resources?
5
All wars and every genocide stem from nationalist ideologies that spurn rationality, science and reflection and embrace manufactured human contempt. Soviet idology pretended to celebrate internationalism, masking a brutal nationalistic imperialism.
Ideologues need scapegoats. There's little doubt tha Nazis genuinely bought into the hatred they whipped up for Jews but prior pan-European anti-semitism offered the Nazis a readily-available target.
Here at home, a dreary, bizarre presidential campaign is revealing a seamy underside of insecurity exploited by demagogues. Who are the targets? Mexicans, other minorities, the undeserving poor, public employees, women seeking reproductive autonomy, even (Who'd have thought? Thank you Scott Walker!) Canadians.
Ideology feeds on anger, fear and hatred. Dehumanization is its life blood. Knowledge is its mortal enemy. It doesn't matter whether the banner is carried in the left hand or the right. We are seeing its destructive rise everywhere and we should be very vigilant.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Ideologues need scapegoats. There's little doubt tha Nazis genuinely bought into the hatred they whipped up for Jews but prior pan-European anti-semitism offered the Nazis a readily-available target.
Here at home, a dreary, bizarre presidential campaign is revealing a seamy underside of insecurity exploited by demagogues. Who are the targets? Mexicans, other minorities, the undeserving poor, public employees, women seeking reproductive autonomy, even (Who'd have thought? Thank you Scott Walker!) Canadians.
Ideology feeds on anger, fear and hatred. Dehumanization is its life blood. Knowledge is its mortal enemy. It doesn't matter whether the banner is carried in the left hand or the right. We are seeing its destructive rise everywhere and we should be very vigilant.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
150
Very true -- and it's sad that the people most susceptible to such ideologies are the ones that are not able to think for themselves and instead get caught up on fear and emotions.
1
I realize that this op-ed was arranged by his publisher so Snyder could sell more books using the Holocaust's emotional weight as leverage, but Snyder is just WRONG about Nazism, its approach to science, and its future as a source of anti-Semitism. The fact that Snyder reports later, Germany importing its food, support the idea for Lebensraum only if you accept Nazism's quest for autarchy - trade self-sufficiency. Hitler and the Nazis didn't hate Jews because of scarce resources. They hated them as "untermenschen" who "polluted" the "pure" "Aryan race". This is a forced argument about the causes of German, general world anti-Semitism. For shame on all involved.
4
This article seems like bit of a stretch. Hitler was also the first proponent of a vehement, nation-wide anti-smoking campaign, something that subsequently governments around the world (especially, left-leaning ones) widely, and perhaps rightly, adopted. Because of s science.
So, why didn't Lebensraum work for the Nazis in that instance?
Was it, rather than this article's hypothesis about 'science denial', just nothing more than a madman's personal preferences and biases being imposed with a heavy fist?
I believe the science of climate change, and that it will likely have an even worse impact on the poor. But to drag Hitler, science denial, and the Holocaust into it is to muddy the waters unnecessarily, and tantamount to nothing more than lending credence to the deniers and their claim that the phrase 'science denial' is simply a shrill comparison to Nazis.
So, why didn't Lebensraum work for the Nazis in that instance?
Was it, rather than this article's hypothesis about 'science denial', just nothing more than a madman's personal preferences and biases being imposed with a heavy fist?
I believe the science of climate change, and that it will likely have an even worse impact on the poor. But to drag Hitler, science denial, and the Holocaust into it is to muddy the waters unnecessarily, and tantamount to nothing more than lending credence to the deniers and their claim that the phrase 'science denial' is simply a shrill comparison to Nazis.
3
Two days ago I read Timothy Snyder's views on the Holocaust as an interview in the Atlantic Monthly. I take issue with his views on this awful event (and ALL genocide) because they are analyzed with concepts which were around until the late 1950s and the present.
(I might add that my own family remaining in Europe was among the victims of the Final Solution--a neutral-sounding euphemism of the time. Neutral-sounding euphemisms have become the hallmark of Republican/TeaParty political "debate" in this country today, whether the total misuse of the word "conservative" for "radical-insane right-wing" and "religious liberty" for "organized hate." George Orwell, who created the term "double-speak" for his despotic novel "1984," would have given us an "I told you so!")
Nazi Germany hardly knew from modern notions of ecology and saving the planet; modern Germany knows this all too well in the clean-up from factories (including wartime artificial-fuel factories such as the Leune-werke) and poisoned forests.
The term "genocide" was first applied to the Holocaust. It wasn't the first time it could be applied, but the scale of it was unprecedented and it was publicly discussed as a nation's policy by its government, in terms such as "racial pollution" and "Lebensraum." Earlier examples include the Spanish Inquisition and the systematic victimization of Native Americans in our own national expansion west.
(I might add that my own family remaining in Europe was among the victims of the Final Solution--a neutral-sounding euphemism of the time. Neutral-sounding euphemisms have become the hallmark of Republican/TeaParty political "debate" in this country today, whether the total misuse of the word "conservative" for "radical-insane right-wing" and "religious liberty" for "organized hate." George Orwell, who created the term "double-speak" for his despotic novel "1984," would have given us an "I told you so!")
Nazi Germany hardly knew from modern notions of ecology and saving the planet; modern Germany knows this all too well in the clean-up from factories (including wartime artificial-fuel factories such as the Leune-werke) and poisoned forests.
The term "genocide" was first applied to the Holocaust. It wasn't the first time it could be applied, but the scale of it was unprecedented and it was publicly discussed as a nation's policy by its government, in terms such as "racial pollution" and "Lebensraum." Earlier examples include the Spanish Inquisition and the systematic victimization of Native Americans in our own national expansion west.
3
I don't discount the thesis of this article but think that the U.S. faces great risk much sooner from psychologically imbalanced political candidates than we do from worldwide ecological panic.
If a narcissist/bully like Trump were to become President, what means might he use to round up and deport 11 million people?
If a religious zealot like Huckabee were to become President, what means might he resort to in controlling women and their reproductive systems?
If a demagogue like Cruz were to become President, what groups would he send to the camps to maintain his view of ideological purity?
If a sociopath like Walker were to become President, what havoc would he wreak upon those who do not support him?
If a member of the elite like Jeb! were to become President, all he will do is keep us poor and let the rich and corporations continue to take 92% of the profit from our labor. Sad to say, that appears to be the best deal the Republican Party is offering us in 2016.
If a narcissist/bully like Trump were to become President, what means might he use to round up and deport 11 million people?
If a religious zealot like Huckabee were to become President, what means might he resort to in controlling women and their reproductive systems?
If a demagogue like Cruz were to become President, what groups would he send to the camps to maintain his view of ideological purity?
If a sociopath like Walker were to become President, what havoc would he wreak upon those who do not support him?
If a member of the elite like Jeb! were to become President, all he will do is keep us poor and let the rich and corporations continue to take 92% of the profit from our labor. Sad to say, that appears to be the best deal the Republican Party is offering us in 2016.
6
Whenever anyone compares something they don't like with Hitler & the Holocaust, they have always already lost the argument.
But this is truly a muddle. It is the alarmists who are the ones promulgating "ecological panic". Not the skeptics. And denying that there is any uncertainty at all in the alarmists computer models & climatological projections is "denying science". Not the other way around. (and, to be clear, another universal false charge is that skeptics should be conflated with outright deniers)
Practicing science (and finding real answers to this issue) is continuing to question, not blindly adhering to, already drawn "conclusions". Only by questioning & revisiting data can we come to realistic solutions.
Horribly demonizing people who do not agree with your policy prescriptions is, indeed, completely destructive to the process. There might be someone before who did that, but I can't think who at the moment.
But this is truly a muddle. It is the alarmists who are the ones promulgating "ecological panic". Not the skeptics. And denying that there is any uncertainty at all in the alarmists computer models & climatological projections is "denying science". Not the other way around. (and, to be clear, another universal false charge is that skeptics should be conflated with outright deniers)
Practicing science (and finding real answers to this issue) is continuing to question, not blindly adhering to, already drawn "conclusions". Only by questioning & revisiting data can we come to realistic solutions.
Horribly demonizing people who do not agree with your policy prescriptions is, indeed, completely destructive to the process. There might be someone before who did that, but I can't think who at the moment.
4
I've always been curious as to the rise of power of the Nazi's and seemingly how compliant the population was with mass murder. Never in my wildest dreams could I imagine it happening in the US. But with the rise of the right wing and their demonization of all things not white/not straight and want of total control of women's reproductive systems, I see it on the horizon. Combine that with the devastating effects of global warming, scary times lie ahead.
6
I very much agree with you about the importance of action to halt global warming. But you're overlooking the other side of the equation, population. Warming will exacerbate resource scarcity but the population explosion is also central.
If we are to avoid a great deal of pointless suffering, and instability that will ultimately affect the first world was well as the third, the world has to get serious about both warming and population control. In both cases, we have the technology that we need to address the problem without hardship, but lack the political will.
If we are to avoid a great deal of pointless suffering, and instability that will ultimately affect the first world was well as the third, the world has to get serious about both warming and population control. In both cases, we have the technology that we need to address the problem without hardship, but lack the political will.
10
Great article Tom!
2
This neo-Malthusian essay is as much or more about human population growth and globalized living standards as it is about anthropogenic climate change. This scenario is likely to play out even if CO2 emissions were not accumulating.
One way or another, the current unsustainable trajectory will be altered. Genocide is one possibility.
One way or another, the current unsustainable trajectory will be altered. Genocide is one possibility.
5
While climate change is certainly an enormous global problem so is OVERPOPULATION. The drive to survive is built into our DNA and when too many people are competing for dwindling resources they are going to start killing each other. Many other animal species will curtail breeding when food and water become scarce. We humans have yet to get the message. Instead of trying to slow down human reproduction we send hundreds of thousands of tons of food to people who are starving so that they can add to the already out of control human population by continuing to breed.
We humans have yet to learn that we cannot systematically destroy our environment by polluting the air we need to breathe and the water we need to drink and get away with it. Climate change is here and it is not going to go away anytime soon. The human population has become the earth's worst nightmare and the planet is fighting back. I think we need to accept the idea that if our species is going to survive a great many individual humans are going to die.
We humans have yet to learn that we cannot systematically destroy our environment by polluting the air we need to breathe and the water we need to drink and get away with it. Climate change is here and it is not going to go away anytime soon. The human population has become the earth's worst nightmare and the planet is fighting back. I think we need to accept the idea that if our species is going to survive a great many individual humans are going to die.
10
Air and water are cleaner today in the free world than in 1950. Overpopulation seems a global impossibility due to cultural changes. Nobody has offered me a soylent cracker, Malthus was evidently mistaken.
Live your life. Eat your teff and quinoa. Drive your Prius. Ride your bike at 12 miles an hour on the thoroughfare. Leave me alone.
Steve Shortland, St. Louis
Live your life. Eat your teff and quinoa. Drive your Prius. Ride your bike at 12 miles an hour on the thoroughfare. Leave me alone.
Steve Shortland, St. Louis
Scientists are already saying current human populations are three times sustainable levels, and freshwater sources are delpeting because they're being used up faster than the processes of nature can replenish.
People have to CHOOSE to start being more responsible with their own reproduction before an environmental collapse steps in and makes the decision to reduce human populations for everyone.
The left needs to break the mentality that growth has to be maintained no matter the cost, that responsible birthrates are a negative that must be combatted with immigration, and having physical room means we have everything needed for more people.
People have to CHOOSE to start being more responsible with their own reproduction before an environmental collapse steps in and makes the decision to reduce human populations for everyone.
The left needs to break the mentality that growth has to be maintained no matter the cost, that responsible birthrates are a negative that must be combatted with immigration, and having physical room means we have everything needed for more people.
6
Thank you for this thoughtful, well reasoned, and ominous warning about the state of world affairs. Was;t it Al Gore that predicted massive global migration that would threaten global stability due to climate change? One of the true deficiencies of human beings, we cannot see this kind of complex threat as it is happening. We can only see the bear chasing ups in the woods or the boulder falling on our head.
4
Interesting article though somewhat histrionic - the elephant in the room in the climate change debate is population growth. We may already have passed the sustainable limit for global population, depending on which figure is used. Population growth is largely the product of public health and the decline in infant mortality since 1945 in all areas of the world. Unless we bring human numbers under control the future is bleak indeed.
9
A key difference not mentioned here that profoundly exacerbates the situation today vs 1940s is that today we have about 7 billion people on the planet vs ~2 billion in 1940s. While technology and science can bring innovative solutions to food and water scarcity, there are some resource limitations that simply cannot be overcome on our planet without breaking laws of physics.
10
The war over food and water,the necessities of life,is long since ago fought by the Iraelis.So,we don´t have to guess about what will happen in the future,its easy to know - the strong will kill the weak.Besides,there is a parallell to food and water,its spelled oil.This war has been going on since the end of WWII.
3
An essay on ecological change that doesn't call out over population-- especially in countries most at risk from climate change-- is one written to prove a theory, not to launch an interesting and thoughtful discussion. In this way, the author blames only the developed world, instead of honestly stating that the problem area need to control their own population.
10
Science has the answer...it's called birth control. Reduce the population and the food problem is solved. Next.
16
This is a truly frightening piece that I think accurately portrays the future. I teach history - in public schools to 7th-graders; I'm not a professor and I don't hold an advanced degree - and it is utterly depressing to see how little fundamental human nature has changed in the last 2,000 years. Today's 1% are just as ruthless as Sulla or Crassus were in ancient Rome. Now, however, they don't have to buy and equip armies; they simply hire lobbyists and buy politicians, up to and including presidents.
It is painfully obvious what needs to be done. What needs to be done, however, will not be done. What this piece predicts is far more likely to come to pass.
It is painfully obvious what needs to be done. What needs to be done, however, will not be done. What this piece predicts is far more likely to come to pass.
205
I'm heartened to read this article in the Times. For once a major media outlet has acknowledged that a very real threat may arise for citizens everywhere, and that this threat could originate in their own government. Mass killing is not upon us yet, and its coming "...won't announce itself in the ways..." that history informs us. Unfortunately, there are many today who believe that a government cannot turn on its own citizens and who would allow the actions of murderers to diminish their constitutional right to self defense.
It was for the reasons clearly summarized in this article that our country's founders included in our constitution our right to keep and bear arms. We can tolerate no abridgment of that right.
It was for the reasons clearly summarized in this article that our country's founders included in our constitution our right to keep and bear arms. We can tolerate no abridgment of that right.
2
Enough of this blather. Question: There are 440 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's 33 molecules of Carbon per 85,000 total molecules of atmosphere. Only one molecule of the 33 are so-called "man made", and yet we are asked to believe that this one molecule drives hugely complex climate change systems, while we are also asked to believe that the other 32 molecules of CO 2 of natural origin play no part in driving climate change. Can you explain this? Hello??
Climate change is a socio-political effort to destroy capitalism. It has nothing to do with science of any kind.
Climate change is a socio-political effort to destroy capitalism. It has nothing to do with science of any kind.
2
This might have been a clever counterpoint among lay deniers 20 years ago but no real skeptic/denier would agree with you. Stick to holding court in bars with nonsense like this.
THE Author here Fails Brilliantly to make a Sensible Argument by linking Holocaust to Environmental Cycles and Fluctuations in Food Supply.
HITLER's rise was accommodated by the French determination to Destroy German Economy following the Versailles, not to mention the German Humiliation post WW-I orchestrated by the French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau.
AS Lord Maynard Keynes correctly opined at the Versailles: "WE Just Laid The Foundation For The Next Great War".
WARS have been, are and will be for "Controlling Resources" and Hitler saw the Colonial Europe that controlled most of the World's Resources as a Threat to German Industrial Complex.
AT some point even the British Politicians such as Lord Halifax offered Germany some of their Colonies in Africa!
AND what is happening with Russia and the EU today, is once again about Resources as the Europeans live in a post-colonial era as Russia sits on the World's Largest Natural Resources posing the same threat as Hitler saw back then.
UKRAINE is Chapter-I in shaping the "New World Order" and the P5+1 Deal with IRAN would be the Chapter-II.
STAY TUNED!
HITLER's rise was accommodated by the French determination to Destroy German Economy following the Versailles, not to mention the German Humiliation post WW-I orchestrated by the French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau.
AS Lord Maynard Keynes correctly opined at the Versailles: "WE Just Laid The Foundation For The Next Great War".
WARS have been, are and will be for "Controlling Resources" and Hitler saw the Colonial Europe that controlled most of the World's Resources as a Threat to German Industrial Complex.
AT some point even the British Politicians such as Lord Halifax offered Germany some of their Colonies in Africa!
AND what is happening with Russia and the EU today, is once again about Resources as the Europeans live in a post-colonial era as Russia sits on the World's Largest Natural Resources posing the same threat as Hitler saw back then.
UKRAINE is Chapter-I in shaping the "New World Order" and the P5+1 Deal with IRAN would be the Chapter-II.
STAY TUNED!
3
Simply listen to GOP rhetoric and conservative radio, Limbaugh, Levine and Plante. Hatred for Latinos, African Americans and any human who will not think and do as they say.
The mind set that we need to invade and kill enough people and that and only that will keep us safe is dangerous.
The mind set that we need to invade and kill enough people and that and only that will keep us safe is dangerous.
5
Rush et al are a miserable bunch, but I love how people ignore that both sides demonize those they disagree with. One need merely look at the comments section on any day of the week to see people who have different points of view denounced as stupid, hateful, mean, evil, etc. How dare [fill in the blank] disagree, right? Please.
Tomorrow, September 14th, is the eve of Rosh Hashanah. It is fitting that this article appears only hours before Jews around the world begin to celebrate the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The slaughter of the Jews ended with WWII yet the reviling and hatred of the Jewish people continues now more than 70 years after the war. So does repression, slaughter and genocide of other peoples. Bosnia, Sebrennicia, Serbia. Sudan, the Yatziidis, Kurds, The wetland people of Iraq, Yemen, Crimea, Ukraine, North Korea's gulags, and Syria. ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, the Taliban and Hamas as well as Mr. Pution and Assad continue, relentlessly to murder, imprison and deny the basic rights of others.
Strangely too, in the U.S. there are creationists and right-wing conservatives who deny science, decry the reality of global warming and rail against vaccinations. That too destroy's our standard of living and risks death and disease in our nation. We also segregate our peoples with more people living in gated communities than in ghettos. How do we rationalize that? In America blacks and minorities are scapegoats. Without subsidizes too many blacks can't feed their families or find housing. Whites imagine blacks and hispanics as the enemy of prosperity and civility. Conservatives rail against social programs and deny civil rights. The next genocide may well take place here disguised as self-sufficiency and self-reliance. We'll stand by as people starve or die of disease.
Strangely too, in the U.S. there are creationists and right-wing conservatives who deny science, decry the reality of global warming and rail against vaccinations. That too destroy's our standard of living and risks death and disease in our nation. We also segregate our peoples with more people living in gated communities than in ghettos. How do we rationalize that? In America blacks and minorities are scapegoats. Without subsidizes too many blacks can't feed their families or find housing. Whites imagine blacks and hispanics as the enemy of prosperity and civility. Conservatives rail against social programs and deny civil rights. The next genocide may well take place here disguised as self-sufficiency and self-reliance. We'll stand by as people starve or die of disease.
2
In conjunction with Mr. Snyder's op-ed readers should read this article from the AP:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/austrias-faymann-likens-orbans-refug...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/austrias-faymann-likens-orbans-refug...
2
There is no "we." Each of us is an individual, and individuals usually jump in favor of their own advantage or against their own disadvantage. There are so many humans, all of them striving for resources. The only obvious way to get everyone acting more or less together would be a world dictatorship, with one leader to organize everything. Without that, the rules of the commons will hold and resources will be consumed as rapidly as possible.
1
The continuing scapegoating of whites for the world's problem. The colored populations should reduce their numbers and grow trees instead of of demanding more money. How many of these country's have wind turbines or solar power.
1
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. It is fitting that a history professor should share his insight about the comparison of climate change and current events to the Nazi Final Solution. The killings and killers are far less obvious because they do not use a stark shot to the head. Surrogates, denials, distractions and plausible deniability are today's weapons of choice. "Killing them softly" and using distraction prevents the push-back that stopped Hitler. All-in-all a thoughtful comparison and warning.
3
"Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?"
A rhetorical question based on the GOP's denial of science as it relates to evolution and climate change, and their MO of resource-seeking war adventurism.
A rhetorical question based on the GOP's denial of science as it relates to evolution and climate change, and their MO of resource-seeking war adventurism.
3
Genocide and war are nothing more than land grabs. It has always been that way. Many millions of years ago I can imagine different clans of Apes fighting over a particular fruit tree in a particular valley where both their territories rubbed against each other. The Russians and the Chinese, especially the Chinese, are preparing for phase two of World War III, while the Republicans worry about whether or not a Christian can deny a Gay person a marriage license. Why are the Chinese building those little sand islands? We all know why don't we? As they do, I hope they read what our young Marines did to the Japanese on even bigger islands. And what about those Russians? They just stole Crimea, while Mitch McConnell tried to deny poor Americans Healthcare. The Russian have 42 ice breakers, and we only have 2. The Republican Congress won't even fix our bridges. Does that make you confident in The Arctic Front and America in general. But I suppose the Koch Brothers want more of their tax dollars, so thanks to Robert's Supreme Court they buy the entire country with just one or two of their many billions. Before we start to fight our new enemies, we must wage war on these billionaires and the politicians they have already bought or else before you know it new fronts will open in Taiwan, Japan Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia, while we fight over abortion and gun control.
8
This is good ecological determinism; but it is heavily reductive all the same. Attempts to "normalize" hatred of Jews by comparing it to other hatreds always fall flat because hatred of Jews simply has an extra kick to it. Whatever form it takes, fear about unseen Jewish power (power over the economy; every move Israel makes, and so on) have a special potency that resists comparison. The Holocaust was not just another genocide; it was a re-enactment of a destructive myth of imagined Jewish power and very real Jewish victimhood that seems to have originated with Pharoah in the Book of Exodus. These myths are not necessarily historical, but they invest events with meaning and contribute to their recurrence. To ignore the functioning of myth in history- in this case anti-Jewish myth- is a kind of naivete.
3
There were "bomb thrower indexes" in industrial sectors banned by exteremists that now are lumped together as "eco-terrorists".
Rarely environmental activists believe in STEM education for themselves and for their leaders who appeal to their base tribal instincts conditioned to oppose engineering solutions.
Many times I would be the only interested person in my regions of America to submit written opposition and oral testimony before federal agencies regulating Congressional laws opposed to worker, community and environmental safety.
US is the leader in military, debt instruments and unintended consequence pro-war legislation. State judges are elected and federal judges are appointed by politicians.
Lobbyists talk, science walks.
Rarely environmental activists believe in STEM education for themselves and for their leaders who appeal to their base tribal instincts conditioned to oppose engineering solutions.
Many times I would be the only interested person in my regions of America to submit written opposition and oral testimony before federal agencies regulating Congressional laws opposed to worker, community and environmental safety.
US is the leader in military, debt instruments and unintended consequence pro-war legislation. State judges are elected and federal judges are appointed by politicians.
Lobbyists talk, science walks.
1
Thank you for this thought-provoking analysis. The Nazi template for responding to "crises" is always the easy recourse because it is so easy to victimize defenseless masses. I am much more optimistic about the prospect of embracing science and reality in the US than I am of the intentions of Russia or China. It is the true totalitarian nature of the administrations in these countries that makes progress impossible. It isn't just Europe that is going to bear the brunt of exodus though. As much of Bangladesh becomes inundated, so will India and the numbers are staggering. The more we stick our heads in the sand, the more the bad actors rule the roost. We need to reverse this trend to ensure that reason and science can take root. Almost certainly the FOX news acolytes will go on offense against Prof. Snyder and his ilk. This should be resisted. Every media outlet needs to understand the urgency of what Prof. Snyder has written and push us all to accept the data and the new realities and start to push for meaningful, sustainable change. If we lead, the world will follow. Will that happen? The answer has to be yes.
3
Sometimes Nature even helps.... After the Tsunami in Indonesia, many small farmers could not prove ownership of the land, because the water had destroyed all records. So large corporations, hotels and the like just grabbed it...
Human beings will kill and maim and grab using all sorts of excuses. So, yes, sadly: We can expect a new holocaust, not agai9nst any special ethnic group., though. Probably against, say, people who don't have computers, or people who live in poor areas. Or unemployed people. Something our capitalist-feudal society simply can't use.
Human beings will kill and maim and grab using all sorts of excuses. So, yes, sadly: We can expect a new holocaust, not agai9nst any special ethnic group., though. Probably against, say, people who don't have computers, or people who live in poor areas. Or unemployed people. Something our capitalist-feudal society simply can't use.
3
As usual an absurdly overstretched analogy when Hitler and Nazism are invoked...Germany was not just trying to "maintain its lifestyle" in the early 1930s, it was trying to overcome a radically unfair and desperate political and economic situation (which is not to say its solutions were justified).
Suffering the effects of the Great Depression worse than any other country in the world (because its economy was dependent on American loans which disappeared virtually overnight), prevented from determining its own policies (the British and French forbade even the establishment of a customs union with Austria to improve trade) and menaced by the nearby Soviet Union (which saw Germany as the best place in which to foment the beginnings of a worldwide proletarian revolution) Germany at that time was facing much more real and pressing concerns than the mere memory of having been blockaded (illegally by the way) by the British during World War One (and taking it out on Jews and Slavs.)
Suffering the effects of the Great Depression worse than any other country in the world (because its economy was dependent on American loans which disappeared virtually overnight), prevented from determining its own policies (the British and French forbade even the establishment of a customs union with Austria to improve trade) and menaced by the nearby Soviet Union (which saw Germany as the best place in which to foment the beginnings of a worldwide proletarian revolution) Germany at that time was facing much more real and pressing concerns than the mere memory of having been blockaded (illegally by the way) by the British during World War One (and taking it out on Jews and Slavs.)
1
Oddly though when there are major concerns of "climate change " and the effects there from are entwined into the problems facing political problems and issues the European Union is facing today due to the issues of the "Middle East", yet there is a perception to attempt to side step the correlation of allowing Iran to continue with a nuclear program and "climate change", while nations like Germany and Japan are abandoning "nuclear" as a means for energy.....
If there is really a "true" concern of climate change, actions like allowing Iran its nuclear program seem to counter the "climate change" movement , which if track records serve any purpose such as Mr. Snyder uses to build his argument, Iran's track records speaks for itself.....
If there is really a "true" concern of climate change, actions like allowing Iran its nuclear program seem to counter the "climate change" movement , which if track records serve any purpose such as Mr. Snyder uses to build his argument, Iran's track records speaks for itself.....
"By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites." The author makes valid points about ecological degradation causing unrest now and in the future, but the above statement belies the contributions that Europe, Russia, India and China have made and continue to make to the problem. To flatly state that the USA has "... done more than any other nation ..." is an unproven hypothesis. China and India are hardly beacons of climate science enlightenment in action. These nations have heavily polluted their air and water supplies, and there is little to suggest that their situations will change any time soon. And Russia's environmental record is certainly nothing to be proud of.
The author does himself no credit (and his argument little good) by laying the blame largely, if not solely, on the USA. While much of Europe has, indeed, gotten its act together, its record is certainly not unblemished. Stick to the salient point -- continued and future economic, political and social unrest are the likely result of environmental degradation. We and others should do all that we can to alleviate, mitigate and eliminate the effects of greenhouse gases, but to place the blame largely on the USA, given the EU bountiful credit, and ignore Russia, India and China is utter rubbish.
The author does himself no credit (and his argument little good) by laying the blame largely, if not solely, on the USA. While much of Europe has, indeed, gotten its act together, its record is certainly not unblemished. Stick to the salient point -- continued and future economic, political and social unrest are the likely result of environmental degradation. We and others should do all that we can to alleviate, mitigate and eliminate the effects of greenhouse gases, but to place the blame largely on the USA, given the EU bountiful credit, and ignore Russia, India and China is utter rubbish.
1
Dude, get a clue. U don't have to be a nazi, a bleeding heart liberal, a Chinese looking at resources all over the world to realize that unless human race gets control over its exploding numbers nothing we do will prevent a total collapse of the systems we and the rest of the planet depend on. No amount of technology, wishful thinking, or handwringing can change the fact that infinite population growth on a finite planet-the path we are currently on as a species- is unsustainable in the long run and will destroy our lifestyle (as it is doing currently) in the short term.
The evidence is clear. We can control our numbers and create a sustainable world and lifestyle or we can let nature do it for us. It is the height of human ignoranc and arrogance to act or think otherwise.
The evidence is clear. We can control our numbers and create a sustainable world and lifestyle or we can let nature do it for us. It is the height of human ignoranc and arrogance to act or think otherwise.
6
the united states with so much climate debt would do well to transfer ecologically sensible and usable tech urgently to the creditors as repayment...easier said than done
1
While resource conflicts disunite and can lead to war and genocide solutions also disunite. Fighting climate change means moving away from coal so countries such as Poland that are heavily dependent on coal suffer economic loss by serving the greater good. Few things unite people in shared humanity. Perhaps the Olympics, but that is marred often by corruption. The landing of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon on July 20, 1969 was a moment that brought much of the planet together. In the intervening decades scientists have discovered an abundance of resources in space and there are visionary plans for supplying energy to Earth from space that generates no CO2! Today, many countries are looking to launch probes to the Moon among them Mexico and South Africa. As costs and risks come down many more will get involved and someday a high school student will be able to conduct a science project on the Moon. But, there is something missing and that is that there is no cooperative mechanism that could make this possible. The EU has furthered progress thru the International Space Exploration Coordinating Group that involves all space agencies. But, NASA and China are not allowed to even discuss collaboration by NASA funding legislation. As mining of the Moon and asteroids is contemplated an international process needs to be activated that can make this happen. To avoid the next genocide let's launch the International Lunar Decade - https://ildwg.wordpress.com/
Really? People who question man made global warming are now Nazis? You hysterical leftists are now entering the realm of loonicy. The track record of the left on its hysteria is terrible. Why should I believe them now? Remember heterosexual AIDS, ALAR, DDT, silicone implants, asbestos, second hand smoke, bird flu, pig flu just to name a few? They were all going to kill us if we didn't hand over power and some of our freedom to our rulers in the central government, so which side is closer to the Nazis? If you have a track record of always being wrong, why would I believe you this time?
2
Snyder has it horribly wrong. Germany never needed more "living space." Germany today has much less land per person than the Third Reich, but a much higher living standard. The problem was all in their heads.
Similarly today there is no resource crisis. There are more resources available per capita today than ever before. That is because resources are defined by human creativity. That is why the global standard of living has gone up as population has increased, not down. The more people, - especially free and educated people - the more inventors, and inventions are cumulative.
In this respect America has been the most productive of nations. It is an anti-American - and anti-human - lie to say that we are using up the world's resources. The opposite is true. Through our inventiveness we are playing an outstanding role in creating the world's resources. China would not be richer if America did not exist. On the contrary, she would be immeasurably poorer.
Similarly America would not benefit by keeping the rest of the world underdeveloped. We are 4% of the world's population, but are responsible for half the inventions. We can take pride in that, but in fact we would be much better off if the rest of the world were contributing inventions at the same rate we do. The world needs more Americans.
The real lesson of the Holocaust for our time is this: We are not threatened by there being too many people. We are threatened by people who say there are too many people.
Similarly today there is no resource crisis. There are more resources available per capita today than ever before. That is because resources are defined by human creativity. That is why the global standard of living has gone up as population has increased, not down. The more people, - especially free and educated people - the more inventors, and inventions are cumulative.
In this respect America has been the most productive of nations. It is an anti-American - and anti-human - lie to say that we are using up the world's resources. The opposite is true. Through our inventiveness we are playing an outstanding role in creating the world's resources. China would not be richer if America did not exist. On the contrary, she would be immeasurably poorer.
Similarly America would not benefit by keeping the rest of the world underdeveloped. We are 4% of the world's population, but are responsible for half the inventions. We can take pride in that, but in fact we would be much better off if the rest of the world were contributing inventions at the same rate we do. The world needs more Americans.
The real lesson of the Holocaust for our time is this: We are not threatened by there being too many people. We are threatened by people who say there are too many people.
2
As I found out researching my upcoming book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and women, Germans not only faced hunger from the British blockade during World War I, many literally starved to death, and everyone, even in the rich, elite classes that Bonhoeffer and Albert Speer occupied, went very hungry. This left a scar that Hitler exploited and that is largely unimaginable to those of us who have never faced real hunger. The author is also right that Hitler, a 19th century thinker, could not envision a world in which technology solved the problem of hunger. However, while climate change does hold real dangers,the chief danger is letting too much power accrue in too few hands. The German people did not want a war after World War I. This was forced on them by a small elite with a stranglehold on power. One could argue too that Hitler used hunger as a justification (though he also took it very seriously): he thought war was the key to a strong civilization and was going to pursue it at all costs. What this article points to is the need to examine our ideologies carefully and take them seriously in terms of the behaviors they motivate.
4
Coming from a Holocaust family, I resent this inaccurate exploitation of that immense tragedy. Hitler was a bigoted, maniacal anti-Semite, but he did not shun science. All you have to remember is that Nazi Germany invented intercontinental ballistic missiles and the jet plane (fortunately much too late to be a factor). Climate change is not the product of a single maniac plotting conquest and ethnic cleansing, but the unwillingness of rich global forces such as the oil industry and the many countries dependent upon it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while changing to green energy. It would be much easier to combat climate change if there was a single malevolent Hitler-like force behind climate change, but unfortunately it is all of us. We all need to become global citizens willing to clean up our only home before we all suffocate to death in the toxic gas chamber we've created.
3
We Conservatives sometimes have to marvel at incessant Liberal attempts to throttle Capitalism--for the sheer creativity, dogmatism and determination of the Left to usher ever bigger government. What a fanciful piece this turns out to be--hitting on all cylinders: Nazis, African drought, genocide, a future Chinese drought, Russian expansionism, America blaming, Republicans as Hitler, ecological panic--all wrapped in a cocoon of impending doom--and tied to the consequences of "Climate Change".
It makes one's head hurt--to consider the mental gymnastics the authors engaged in to spin this neat piece of propaganda. But I can only marvel at the underlying commitment. You guys are really, really serious about this, aren't you? I don't mean this "climate change" claptrap--I mean the handicapping of Capitalism--by any means possible. My only disappointment is that you missed a golden opportunity to mention income inequality--another anti-Capitalist meme. Well...maybe next time.
Space will not allow a thorough rebuttal of this hysterical mess, but it does beg for the asking of one question. What was the cause of drought 2,000 years ago--before there were Liberals to pin it to "climate change"?
It makes one's head hurt--to consider the mental gymnastics the authors engaged in to spin this neat piece of propaganda. But I can only marvel at the underlying commitment. You guys are really, really serious about this, aren't you? I don't mean this "climate change" claptrap--I mean the handicapping of Capitalism--by any means possible. My only disappointment is that you missed a golden opportunity to mention income inequality--another anti-Capitalist meme. Well...maybe next time.
Space will not allow a thorough rebuttal of this hysterical mess, but it does beg for the asking of one question. What was the cause of drought 2,000 years ago--before there were Liberals to pin it to "climate change"?
2
In this century, shortages of water may be worse in some places, and more dangerous, than shortages of food.
They may also be one of the main causes of food shortages.
They may also be one of the main causes of food shortages.
2
This is a view of Hitler and the Shoah to which I am not accustomed. Hitler was a neurotic racist from the start. It is WWI that created a political vacuum that allowed his party to expand on the background of a century of antisemitism in European societies. His fight against socialism was also very important, since socialism was percieved by the elites as THE major threath to order. I never read anywhere before that the young SS were killing jews so that Germans could be fed.
As for Ecological Genocide, I am not convinced. Genocides have been comitted in history for all sorts of reasons. Expansion, colonialism, racist theories. Wars also have had many reasons. Famine is one of them. Greed is an other. Revenge? That may play in part for the war in Irak, even if it missed the target...
In the end, we all can predict that A war will happen eventually, but predicting the reasons is a hard bet.
As for Ecological Genocide, I am not convinced. Genocides have been comitted in history for all sorts of reasons. Expansion, colonialism, racist theories. Wars also have had many reasons. Famine is one of them. Greed is an other. Revenge? That may play in part for the war in Irak, even if it missed the target...
In the end, we all can predict that A war will happen eventually, but predicting the reasons is a hard bet.
4
The Author has made a rather weak attempt at revisionist history. The Nazi's did not deny science they used science effectively and also perverted it, the difference is not at all subtle.
“These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.” This statement by the author has a false conclusion. Hitler did not deny or present as conspiracy, he used the scientific findings of eugenics to prove Jews were vermin that had to be removed.
In June 1940, Winston Churchill warned the world about a new dark age brought about by the Nazis “perverted science”. If we are to accept the authors logic Churchill was a denier.
“These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.” This statement by the author has a false conclusion. Hitler did not deny or present as conspiracy, he used the scientific findings of eugenics to prove Jews were vermin that had to be removed.
In June 1940, Winston Churchill warned the world about a new dark age brought about by the Nazis “perverted science”. If we are to accept the authors logic Churchill was a denier.
5
Some of the images coming out of Hungary in particular-- tricking people to get on trains to detention camps or families being chased through corn fields to avoid capture-- feel like deja vu all over again. The article can serve as a teachable moment, and I'm sure many teachers, parents and professors will use it to help connect the dots between all of these issues-- food, climate, energy, ethnic clashes, poverty, geopolitical jockeying over resources.
Yes, denying the science imperils the future, which is why science education is vital and schools everywhere must prepare young people to minimize climate and ecological impacts, and maximize resiliency, tolerance and humanity.
Yes, denying the science imperils the future, which is why science education is vital and schools everywhere must prepare young people to minimize climate and ecological impacts, and maximize resiliency, tolerance and humanity.
67
It seems that ideology and certain levels of ignorance have troubled our globe for centuries. When those in power have a mindset that males war and expansion the solution, mankind will always by in trouble. The negative outlooks that pervaded nation's policies, usually have other hidden objectives.
The current negativism in one party's policy goals reflect a lack of realism and the need to look out for all the people, not just the wealthy elites. The fear propaganda is a powerful and dangerous tool for an under-educated nation.
Stir hate and fear into an election campaign and the outcome will be not for the best interests of the nation.
The current negativism in one party's policy goals reflect a lack of realism and the need to look out for all the people, not just the wealthy elites. The fear propaganda is a powerful and dangerous tool for an under-educated nation.
Stir hate and fear into an election campaign and the outcome will be not for the best interests of the nation.
1
“It could happen again.” Of course, except it we are able to admit that any country could act as inhuman way as Germany did decades ago. Human beings are capable of anything, including killing each other in the name of any god they have created.
1
I find it strange that at no point does this piece grapple with the religious angle to all of these genocides. I guess when you're straining to make a bizarre point, certaim details have to be sacrificed.
3
Well, people use religion as a crutch to justify their fear of others. I'd agree, the search for "purity" is to blame for a lot of selfishness. Perhaps we should accept that we are imperfect and give each other the right to exist.
Open mindedness and curiosity are helpful; other bashing is not, religious or otherwise.
Open mindedness and curiosity are helpful; other bashing is not, religious or otherwise.
1
The next holocaust will not happen from climate change or food rationing. It will be as most are power hungry people that hate. The Middle East is about to explode and WW 3 is near. It also will involve more than Israel and her neighbors though that is how it will start. But that will lead to a false peace and a world leader that will control most of the world. But the worst genocide is happening now 57 million children dead and still happening with our governments approval.
After reviewing Hitler's skepticism about the possibilities of agricultural science, Mr. Snyder makes much of the right's denial of climate change. Perhaps I missed something, but the premise had me expecting a a story about the dangers of pseudoscientific GMO fears.
1
There are three sides - the good guys ( "the West"), the bad guys ( "the usual suspects"), and the stupid vulnerables ( "the prolifics"). Never mind, global warming is the cause celebre of the good guys whose continued growth of luxury and disproportionate use of the Earth's resources may not be sustainable as the rest of the world would like a little bit of that. Which brings up the question "Who is really panicked and is likely to take "protective" measures?". Just listen to the fear mongering. The threat, the need to understand in the context of the most inhumane period of human history, and of course, the need to recognize the obligation!
2
The author has the cause and effect reversed. In nearly all cases, food shortages are the result of war, not the cause of war (due to men being taking away from farming, agricultural supplies and equipment not be interrupted, etc.).
We should encourage peaceful solutions to problems among parties and cease military attempts to solutions. Doing so will go far in assuring food supply and minimizing motivations for mass violence.
We should encourage peaceful solutions to problems among parties and cease military attempts to solutions. Doing so will go far in assuring food supply and minimizing motivations for mass violence.
Whereas this article makes an excellent point about the historical correlation between genocide and resource shortages, it really goes too far when it extrapolates to future calamity. Global warming is real, the science is clear. Far less obvious is that the situation in China or the middle east has anything to do with global warming. In making this causal attribution, the author makes the same non-scientific leap of faith that Hitler did. A far more cogent argument can be made that the conflict in middle east is a post-cold war skirmish arising from a new global political balance. China cannot feed itself because of runaway population increases, not because of climate distress. I believe that facts should be the basis of all conclusions - the author of this article seems to bypass this fundamental requirement.
Not enough resources or is it too many people? Bangladesh. Many of us know a bit about the place thanks to the lovely works of Joan Baez in the early '70's. It was a constantly flooding poor place with a population of 50 million plus. Today, it is a little over 150 million! But climate change is the problem? People starving in Africa but the continent posses half of the world's untilled farmable land? But climate change and the Hitler types that don't buy the hype are the problem? Follow the money. How much is the US expected to pay places like Bangladesh? Because that is what this is all about. Money.
1
It's too early in the morning for Godwin's Law to be coming into play. Can't I at least finish my coffee first?
1
In the background lurks a strong argument for limiting our own numbers.
3
Is the present strain of "build walls on the borders" xenophobia in the US a symptom of ecopanic? The violence in Central America is caused partly by violent scrambling for resources like food and land. That violence is driving people north.
The same sort of thing is happening in Africa and western Asia. Again, it's driving lots of people north. At the present time Western Europe is generously welcoming many of them. Let's hope their presence doesn't regenerate ecopanic
The same sort of thing is happening in Africa and western Asia. Again, it's driving lots of people north. At the present time Western Europe is generously welcoming many of them. Let's hope their presence doesn't regenerate ecopanic
1
he author ignores the fact that the killing grounds and concentration camps were full of Slavs, Russians, Poles and Gypsies not just Jews.
Nazism was committed to wiping out Communism which it believed was a philosophy promoted by Jews.
Nazism was committed to wiping out Communism which it believed was a philosophy promoted by Jews.
Well I guess you can't expect too many happy editorials these days. However, this one is particularly grim because it seems to predict an inevitable future. Frustrating because it highlights the fact that the United States is in the forefront of climate deniers when as an enlightened scientific country it should be leading the charge to solve the problem!
2
Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced.
Here in Australia, farmers are leaving the land and vast agricultural and pastoral acres are being snapped up by foreign owners; cash crops, such as cotton, are draining scarce water from our main arterial river system. And the final insult is our government's devaluation of science (in general) and its refusal to recognise the crisis of global warming. A major media empire abets the government in its anti-science attitudes and in its promotion of wealth.
So, the science is rejected and the ideology of profit is all powerful.
Here in Australia, farmers are leaving the land and vast agricultural and pastoral acres are being snapped up by foreign owners; cash crops, such as cotton, are draining scarce water from our main arterial river system. And the final insult is our government's devaluation of science (in general) and its refusal to recognise the crisis of global warming. A major media empire abets the government in its anti-science attitudes and in its promotion of wealth.
So, the science is rejected and the ideology of profit is all powerful.
2
Thirty or forty years ago, "ZPG" (Zero Population Growth) attracted much support and was practically a household word. Although the population crisis has worsened since then, the awareness of this movement seems to have disappeared---at least I've seen or heard very little reference to it lately, although there is plenty on other issues. I could never figure this out. In light of the frightening problems we have today, most of them exacerbated by overpopulation, ZPG should supported and talked about by everyone.
3
The July, 1968 experiments on expanding mouse populations conducted by John Calhoun, produced behaviors that were the essence of aberrance. Those same behaviors are somewhat analogous to some of the emerging tragedies in the world today. Are we at the beginning of the Malthusian predictions:
"That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence, That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and, That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."
It appears we are here.
"That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence, That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and, That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."
It appears we are here.
2
My earlier post re. Mike Davis's work should have referred to droughts in the 19th century, not 18th.
Enter the empirical evidence of GMO bounty. And just in time, too, what with all the agricultural uncertainty of climate change about. Hopefully, those with dangerously-selfish motivations, errantly rooted in pseudo-nutrition-science (All be them profitable for Left Wing orgs.) do not become so influential with a selfish indignation, so as to demand foods that would deny acreage to bio-medically wise GMO agriculture. Where is a Hitler to refute such science?
Isaiah 28:29
The Lord of Heaven’s Armies is a wonderful teacher, and he gives the farmer great wisdom.
Isaiah 28:29
The Lord of Heaven’s Armies is a wonderful teacher, and he gives the farmer great wisdom.
Ok so religion is rational and lefties are motivated by what? Greed? How do I make $ off of being against genetically modified? Especially since all I ask is gmos be labeled as such. Does your religion maintain that ignorance is good?
1
But denying science is the major plank of one of our political parties in the US, and their spreading of the belief that anyone with an education, anyone who can actually read beyond "WALMART" is suspect and is "puttin' on airs" and "not keepin' it real" (except for YOUR doctor/lawyer, of course.) We have gone from a nation of immigrants who desperately wanted their children to be absorbed into our culture to one where national pride in one’s home country overshadows any sense of becoming an American. Murdering anyone who does not believe in some version of the completely mythical idea of the "Puritan Ethic" and who, as Judge Smails said, “does not fit-in (wink-wink, nudge, nudge),” is the goal. No matter that the lying, cheating, stealing, and total lawlessness of our current "ruling class" (the so-called 1%) who have taken over the country by purchasing the government are neither Puritans nor ethical by any logical definition of the word.
Once the rest of the violent nations of the world have nuclear bombs AND an effective way to deliver them, "ethnic" cleansing, as practiced in nations across our planet today, will become rampant. The resources for survival--food/clean water, shelter/breathable air, clothing--will become more scarce as those in power deny them to those out of power. The "new" Holocaust is already in progress and it will endure as the belief in the science of climate change is squashed by those who profit from its denial. Is that "real" enough for you?
Once the rest of the violent nations of the world have nuclear bombs AND an effective way to deliver them, "ethnic" cleansing, as practiced in nations across our planet today, will become rampant. The resources for survival--food/clean water, shelter/breathable air, clothing--will become more scarce as those in power deny them to those out of power. The "new" Holocaust is already in progress and it will endure as the belief in the science of climate change is squashed by those who profit from its denial. Is that "real" enough for you?
2
A problem about accepting or denying science is that it is a function of the powerful, political or industrial. We've got to face the fact that the majority of the human race is not equipped to analyze the data and decide for themselves.
Even if all are created equal, even if we are "all equal in the eyes of God," we are not equal in our capacity to comprehend the consequences of global or even national actions of humans. I recall many discussions that foundered on that fact. One very nice man wanted to discuss the problems of workers and the middle class, but when I mentioned outsourcing and globalization, he threw his hands up and said that such issues were beyond him.
This is a challenge for democracy and for leadership. The solution is not some kind of exclusion test. Better to have all inside the tent than to have many outside throwing grenades. Mmmm...is that what's happened with the Tea Party and the Trumpite grenade throwers?
Even if all are created equal, even if we are "all equal in the eyes of God," we are not equal in our capacity to comprehend the consequences of global or even national actions of humans. I recall many discussions that foundered on that fact. One very nice man wanted to discuss the problems of workers and the middle class, but when I mentioned outsourcing and globalization, he threw his hands up and said that such issues were beyond him.
This is a challenge for democracy and for leadership. The solution is not some kind of exclusion test. Better to have all inside the tent than to have many outside throwing grenades. Mmmm...is that what's happened with the Tea Party and the Trumpite grenade throwers?
The statement: "Americans will have spent years spreading climate disaster around the world" is not supported by facts in this article.
And what of China's mine fires that have been burning for decades and longer? Has Mr. Snyder tried walking around Peking while breathing?
The very existence of Israel was a result of one ethnic group's desire to live on another group's land. And what of the Crusades? Were they started by the growth of Arab populations and expansion?
Look at Russian history and the Mongols or Europe and the Vikings. A big empty space just begging for a few hoards of horsemen to come romping across it or a weak feudal system that might have put up a sign: "Invaders Welcome." World history is, in effect, a history of population growth and the results thereof. China's very power comes from it's cheap labor, a result of over-population.
So, great scientists are going to solve everything? Not hardly. Who is going to point the finger at Arab, European, Chinese, Africans or any other group and say: "You, over there, quit reproducing so much!"? Certainly no scientist.
Mother nature, however, will certainly do just that.
Mr. Snyder's shotgun approach might interest the next cheap, blow-em-up disaster movie producer, but comparing all the world's problem to a baseline of a group of German people who were a power for less than one decade, is not a well thought out premise.
And what of China's mine fires that have been burning for decades and longer? Has Mr. Snyder tried walking around Peking while breathing?
The very existence of Israel was a result of one ethnic group's desire to live on another group's land. And what of the Crusades? Were they started by the growth of Arab populations and expansion?
Look at Russian history and the Mongols or Europe and the Vikings. A big empty space just begging for a few hoards of horsemen to come romping across it or a weak feudal system that might have put up a sign: "Invaders Welcome." World history is, in effect, a history of population growth and the results thereof. China's very power comes from it's cheap labor, a result of over-population.
So, great scientists are going to solve everything? Not hardly. Who is going to point the finger at Arab, European, Chinese, Africans or any other group and say: "You, over there, quit reproducing so much!"? Certainly no scientist.
Mother nature, however, will certainly do just that.
Mr. Snyder's shotgun approach might interest the next cheap, blow-em-up disaster movie producer, but comparing all the world's problem to a baseline of a group of German people who were a power for less than one decade, is not a well thought out premise.
3
A brilliant analysis and warning, which many people in the U.S. are unlikely to heed. In the name of profits, large corporations and others have distorted and campaigned against ecological scientific inquiry. Scientists have been besmirched and scientific papers censored occasionally by politicians (as happened with some papers by NASA scientists). When politics combined with greed work against science, nothing good can come from it. It is sad that anti-science propaganda is accepted by so many people who are not getting the profits but are manipulated to work against their own and particularly their children's best interests. Another world war or smaller but continual skirmishes are inevitable because we have so many small-minded leaders and politicians.
1
The world's population has tripled since 1940 and the world's resurces have not. Oops!
3
"When mass killing is on the way, it won’t announce itself in the language we are familiar with"....
This statement seems like Mr. Synder has not paid any attention to any news the past several decades, since mass killings have been occurring since the 1970's.......
Sadly the "Middle Eastern " problems, resulting in the migration of refugees into Europe are transforming in other issues where ideologies on how to accommodate and cope will clash in the attempt not to repeat history, yet at the same time it seems there is more emphasis in the US "social media" hearts and minds of the public showing more concern for "same sex" rights than what is happening in the Middle East and Europe....
Is the American public foolishly thinking we are isolated from these issues by the Atlantic Ocean and/or this is not an American problem but a European one?
Perhaps more NY times readers should read some of the articles the NY Times provides in their archives, where one can read the entire paper from before World War I up until today......
This statement seems like Mr. Synder has not paid any attention to any news the past several decades, since mass killings have been occurring since the 1970's.......
Sadly the "Middle Eastern " problems, resulting in the migration of refugees into Europe are transforming in other issues where ideologies on how to accommodate and cope will clash in the attempt not to repeat history, yet at the same time it seems there is more emphasis in the US "social media" hearts and minds of the public showing more concern for "same sex" rights than what is happening in the Middle East and Europe....
Is the American public foolishly thinking we are isolated from these issues by the Atlantic Ocean and/or this is not an American problem but a European one?
Perhaps more NY times readers should read some of the articles the NY Times provides in their archives, where one can read the entire paper from before World War I up until today......
2
The theory that population will grow until it outstrips its food supply hardly originated with Adolph Hitler. (The Japanese also went to war because it though it's people would starve without territorial expansion.) In Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), Thomas Robert Malthus warned that population growth will always exceed resource growth, leading to catastrophic checks (wars, genocides, famines and plagues) on overpopulation, because population grows exponentially while food supply grows arithmetically. Recent famines in Ethiopia, Somalia, and Somalia are localized examples of the Malthusian Principle at work, but we’ve managed so far to feed the growing population thanks to enhanced agriculture techniques, fertilizers, and genetically engineer crops. This doesn’t prove that the Malthusian Principle is wrong, of course; it’s just that we managed to go several decades since the last major catastrophic check. New energy technology might permit us to put off the reckoning a little longer, but not forever.
1
Except the growth rate of world population peaked in the 1960s. It's still growing exponentially, but at a decreasing rate. At least there is that.
If you want to see a rehearsal for climate change catastrophe, you need only look at what happened to New Orleans when Katrina hit.
Government failed to attend to the most in need of help, infrastructure proved inadequate and broke down, and the most vulnerable simply trying to survive were branded looters and were shot down by police who herded them away from safety.
What happened in the Superdome should especially be taken as a warning of how fear and paranoia shape reactions. Horror stories about anarchy inside, with wide scale rape and murder turned out to be not the case - people did their best to cope with an impossible situation while authorities dithered and acted as though they were dealing with a prison riot.
Chaos at the one operating airport kept medical evacuees trapped for hours and days waiting for transport, until Al Gore acting as a private citizen broke the log jam by chartering aircraft and cutting through bureaucratic paralysis.
And in the aftermath, a form of economic ethnic cleansing took place as survivors were dispersed, neighborhoods were allowed to selectively disappear, and public school 'reform' allowed the education profiteers to impose their agenda. The political map was reshaped to benefit those who'd been looking for a means to do it for decades, and who seized the opportunity.
Picture Climate Change as a slow motion Katrina on a global scale that doesn't stop - and you can see the potential for horror if we refuse to learn and act.
Government failed to attend to the most in need of help, infrastructure proved inadequate and broke down, and the most vulnerable simply trying to survive were branded looters and were shot down by police who herded them away from safety.
What happened in the Superdome should especially be taken as a warning of how fear and paranoia shape reactions. Horror stories about anarchy inside, with wide scale rape and murder turned out to be not the case - people did their best to cope with an impossible situation while authorities dithered and acted as though they were dealing with a prison riot.
Chaos at the one operating airport kept medical evacuees trapped for hours and days waiting for transport, until Al Gore acting as a private citizen broke the log jam by chartering aircraft and cutting through bureaucratic paralysis.
And in the aftermath, a form of economic ethnic cleansing took place as survivors were dispersed, neighborhoods were allowed to selectively disappear, and public school 'reform' allowed the education profiteers to impose their agenda. The political map was reshaped to benefit those who'd been looking for a means to do it for decades, and who seized the opportunity.
Picture Climate Change as a slow motion Katrina on a global scale that doesn't stop - and you can see the potential for horror if we refuse to learn and act.
2
The article doesn't mention China's drastic (and much criticized) efforts to curb its population growth, the one child policy, since it knew it could never achieve economic prosperity or even feed all its people if the population continued to grow uncurbed. I have seen estimates that as many as ONE BILLION more people would be in China without the controls (achieved at much personal and social pain.) The article also blames the US for climate change without mentioning that the birth rate in the US (native-born citizens) is close to replacement rate. Population pressure alone can create pressures leading to violence and war, even more when coupled with climate change.
3
Since 1900, it is estimated the U.S. has emitted about 28% of cumulative carbon emissions; China about 12%. India 3%.
2
China's one child policy did more to reduce carbon emissions than the entire Kyoto protocol.
At best, a misguided and mostly spectacular exhibition of stupidity, seemingly triggered by the frustration of growing and mass rejection of the "climatists" fantasies. At worst a pathetic summoning of the Nazis history to try to shock a reconsideration of their basic stupidity.
Sorry, the conventional world is more and familiar with the sensationalist tactics since trying the merits is a resounding failure.
Sorry, the conventional world is more and familiar with the sensationalist tactics since trying the merits is a resounding failure.
3
Good that comments are now being allowed by the NYTimes opinion dept on your piece "The Next Genocide", Mr. Snyder. Yes, the Holocaust, the Shoah, may seem a distant horror but it is alive and well today for Jews of all suasions in the global diaspora. Today German domination and "lebensraum" and Goebbels and Der Spiegel and Goring in 1939: "if one enemy bomber reaches the Ruhr, you can call me 'Meyer" - "hello, Meyer!" are the bitter fruit of Das Dritte Reich and 12 years of totalitarian domination in Asia and Europe, till the Allies put paid to the thousand year Reich. But what happened before, in history, can happen again. Are climate change and drought as horrific as Hitler was? Millions of refugees from subSahara, Mediterranean rim countries, and tribal wars in the Middle East are migrating desperately toward Europe and the UK. "National borders" mean diddly to starving refugees. China starved its population many times over the centuries. "Fortified colonies" by the Chinese in Africa may result from ecological panic. The ghastly triumph of the New Caliphate, ISIL/ISIS, The Islamic State - totalitarianism writ large in the Middle East - is the thin edge of the genocidal wedge in our time. Science cannot be denied. Can Lebensraum be denied? Can genocide today be denied?
1
One need only to consider who the beneficiaries of state Fascism were: the oligarchs who owned Germany's large corporations. Similarly, our wonderful Koch brothers assiduously use their own media, that they own outright, to propagandize their audience with the messages of climate change denial and hatred of non-caucasian people and alternative lifestyles. Those whose grandparents may have thought Hitler was wonderful, during the 1930s at least, out here in the Midwest, have descendants who eat up the Koch-funded garbage with two forks. And they vote.
3
And how might we deal with the US violent expansion program, for which all of the last 11 presidents including Obama should be indicted (Noam Chomsky). The crimes of the third reich are being challenged by the past 70 years of US foreign policy.
1
The first step in this process would be the realization that we are simply devices for the propagation of nucleic acids and are not some manifestation of a shadowy removed God that has some plan for us and this world that is parceled out to a hand picked elect. Tell a group what it wants to hear about itself and that group will be manipulated for whatever purpose--typically to destroy another group perceived as different on some predictably flimsy basis This has gone on forever--Joshua fit the battle of Jericho.
I would just add a few points.
1. The Chinese are not just buying up agribusinesses and farmlands in third world nations, but may be buying that farmland in your own state or if you live in an rural community in your own neighborhood. I think if the Times did an investigation on the amount of farmland being bought up by the Chinese, and other foreign interests I am sure, in the US, it may surprise some. I am not being xenophobic, but just pointing out what may be a reality. How this will play out in the future is anyone's guess.
2. As populations increase and the demand for agricultural products grow, we need to curtail the use of turning good arable land into the next big subdivision. It is amazing the amount of good farmland that we lose to turn good farmland into houses that may sit on the market for years and are then bought by speculators. We need to have stricter local zoning laws and state agricultural laws to keep our farmlands and that will discourage needless destruction of arable land.
Perhaps, ironically, the country that has recently done more harm to its own domestic agriculture is China. It has destroyed countless thousands of acres of arable land to build its ghost cities. Is it any wonder, it seeks food sources elsewhere?
1. The Chinese are not just buying up agribusinesses and farmlands in third world nations, but may be buying that farmland in your own state or if you live in an rural community in your own neighborhood. I think if the Times did an investigation on the amount of farmland being bought up by the Chinese, and other foreign interests I am sure, in the US, it may surprise some. I am not being xenophobic, but just pointing out what may be a reality. How this will play out in the future is anyone's guess.
2. As populations increase and the demand for agricultural products grow, we need to curtail the use of turning good arable land into the next big subdivision. It is amazing the amount of good farmland that we lose to turn good farmland into houses that may sit on the market for years and are then bought by speculators. We need to have stricter local zoning laws and state agricultural laws to keep our farmlands and that will discourage needless destruction of arable land.
Perhaps, ironically, the country that has recently done more harm to its own domestic agriculture is China. It has destroyed countless thousands of acres of arable land to build its ghost cities. Is it any wonder, it seeks food sources elsewhere?
3
One thing Prof. Synder neglects to mention is that most of the nations of today's world were founded on genocide. Most recently were those of the American continent; but in the history of practically every nation of Europe is at least one violent displacement of an ancient people by a more modern one that migrated into their territory. The same is true of other continents. Most of these displacements occurred far back enough in time that we don't know the details, but the basic nature of the events is clear. Perhaps it is actually a sign of progress that today we condemn such events and at least bemoan them, even if we don't try to stop them.
The canary in the coal mine is tweeting us but we won't hear him and he can't type. And soon he will have died and we blissfully go on and on never looking in the mine to see if he is OK.
1
Poverty is to me a more fearful cause of global problems than climate change, though certainly we should be doing more to alleviate both.
1
I'm uncomfortable with how the author overlooks (denies?) the different issues in U.S., Nazi, and Putin-era politics as it relates to commerce, science and religion. U.S. based resistance to popular sentiment on climate-change is not religious - it's smart commercial suspicion of government funded research that concludes that heavy government-regulation of resources is "the answer" to climate change. My suspicion is not at all about science-denial, it's about wanting to deny my government any more control over energy resources. Once a heavy-handed government rules resources, it rules poorly. War and genocide is inevitable on the part of heavy-handed governments like Hitler's and Putin's: inherently it cannot properly manage resources and it will resort to any means to take resources from outside its borders in a vain attempt to stave off domestic disasters that it is causing through its own poor management.
46
Heavy-handedness is a problem in any construct,regardless of ideology.I cannot imagine "resources" in the hands of profiteers inasmuch as the very people we are discussing are the ones most neglected."Checks and Balances" works for me.
Sadly, those who conflate empirical evidence and big government often also conflate no regulation with progress.
For such as you, fighting big government AND fighting irresponsible hydrocarbon use can and must go hand in hand.... it's far too late, and this is far too important, to put the former battle before the latter...
For such as you, fighting big government AND fighting irresponsible hydrocarbon use can and must go hand in hand.... it's far too late, and this is far too important, to put the former battle before the latter...
1
Realistic article, obviously the ways to come. However, it does not mention the gorilla in in the room. Population! No matter what we do, trust science or not, use alternate energy or not, etc., unless we stop and actually decrease our numbers we face the same future. Nature will decrease our number for us.
462
I agree. Mother nature will eventually deal with the human population explosion that neither governments, religions nor individuals are willing to face. 2.5 billion people lived on planet earth when I was born 69 years ago. 9 billion are expected to inhabit our planet by the time I depart. Totally unsustainable.
1
And also appearing on the front page is the article about the amazingly bright young man admitted to Harvard - educated at a special school in Somaliland - who comes from a family of 18 siblings with divorced parents?! - figure that out. Bottom line - we and I mean the world "we" need to advocate for the one child rule in every country and ethnic group NOW - China had it and relaxed it and are eating themselves out of their own country. When the population in in billions of course there will be climate or man made catastrophes which occur to reduce it - but a few hundred thousand starving is but a drop in the bucket of the ever increasing population.
1
Mr. Snyder is suggesting that if Germany had adequate food supplies the Nazis would have had no interest in totally eliminating the Jewish population of the world. I think he's wrong.
1
The GOP fits into this description of the future very well.
3
Cherry picking history and ignoring the politics of the day make for a stupid article, I'm afraid. No matter how much you people keep telling the lie it will never make it the truth.
2
Why doesn't this article confront the deniers in the Republican party that are now throughout all levels of government?
3
Over 200 years ago, the economist Thomas Malthus pointed out that populations tend to grow 'geometrically', i.e. they grow at a rate that is proportional to their size. Malthus, concerned that the earth would eventually become unable to provide enough sustenance to satisfy the nutritional needs of its population. Years later, Adolph Hitler, similarly concerned, as he expressed in his book, Mein Kampf, arrived at the need to seek 'Lebensraum' (Living Room) for the German-people - all of which led directly to WW-II and the Holocaust.
Since then, humans have been busy creating pricisely the same problem that Malthus and Hitler found so disturbing, all those years ago, and have been procreating exactly as predicted by the mathematicians, while politicians enact laws (anti-abortion, 'abstinance-only', etc) that only exacerbate the problem.
As Captain Quint of the good ship ORCA observed: 'We're gonna need a bigger boat'
Since then, humans have been busy creating pricisely the same problem that Malthus and Hitler found so disturbing, all those years ago, and have been procreating exactly as predicted by the mathematicians, while politicians enact laws (anti-abortion, 'abstinance-only', etc) that only exacerbate the problem.
As Captain Quint of the good ship ORCA observed: 'We're gonna need a bigger boat'
1
I won't dispute the thesis that ecological issues contributed to the Holocaust, but what you ignore is the the primary driver was anti-Semitism. The "Jews" have always been seen as the "Other" for more than a thousand years and have been subject to persecution in one place after another with very few exceptions. Towards the end of the war, the Nazis and their collaborators used precious resources to keep the extermination camps running. The goal was not having fewer mouths to feed, but to eliminate every Jew they could find and end the Jewish "race".
Today not only do we see the rise of violent conflict in areas with too few resources to support the local population but we also see the rise in anti-Semitism in areas that have sufficient resources. In global surveys anti-Semitism is growing in Western Europe and can be found in places where people have never seen a Jew. This hatred is as universal as the fact that environmental stress causes conflict.
This article minimizes the role that anti-Semitisim played in the Holocaust to prove a thesis. If we are to learn from it we will heed the advice in this column and step up to fight anti-Semitism...both are needed.
Today not only do we see the rise of violent conflict in areas with too few resources to support the local population but we also see the rise in anti-Semitism in areas that have sufficient resources. In global surveys anti-Semitism is growing in Western Europe and can be found in places where people have never seen a Jew. This hatred is as universal as the fact that environmental stress causes conflict.
This article minimizes the role that anti-Semitisim played in the Holocaust to prove a thesis. If we are to learn from it we will heed the advice in this column and step up to fight anti-Semitism...both are needed.
6
Totally agree. The author has some valid points, but is revisionist in minimizing pure bigotry and the ability of demagogues to gain support among the paranoid by openly expressing that bigotry. Wanting the Germans to have full bellies is far too benign an analysis of what led to a war of monstrous proportions and the annihilation of a people, the Jews. We need to be on guard against the ginning up of that sort of hatred.
The Internet meme called Godwin's Law is now 25 years old. Mr. Snyder appears to have written not only an entire specious essay invoking the specter of Hitler in his arguments, but, apparently, has written an entire book using the same basic logic. I'm no expert on Hitler's rise, but I think racial superiority had as least as much to do with the extermination of Jews, and others considered undesirable, by the German high command as any concerns about land use and food scarcity. And calling this concern over land usage an "ecological" issue also seems like a stretch. One of Professor Snyder's main rhetorical methods is to use an overwhelmingly dark analogy to today's crises in order to get the reader's attention. This crude, fear-mongering approach from a Yale history professor is a bit surprising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
6
prof snyder,s longer essay in this week's new york review of books puuts the ecological points as following from the racial supremacy. u might find it is more in line w ur sense of the central issues
This essay resonated with me; it brings together the real dangers of climate change and the massive competition going on now for control of world resources, as developed countries scramble to preserve their advantages and the rest of the world acquires armaments to try to gain whatever advantage possible from that. We already pretty much ( in the US) dismiss the human consequences of our actions - despite beyond ' food secure.' And we have too many politicians willing to demonize other groups for 'stealing' resources ( " the Mexicans" per Trump and McCarthy-like Cruz) because scapegoating does work in politics - while taking difficult steps - or using scientific approaches to change - does not.
2
Not to mention the right wing obsession with eliminating contraception...animal populations produce fewer offspring in seasons when food is scarce; we , in our arrogance, keep popping them out.
Thank you for this important example of why historical scholarship matters. I would suggest also Mike Davis's "Late Victorian Holocausts," which examines how the confluence of climate disruption (el nino caused draught across large swaths of the southern hemisphere), global grain markets, and industrial transportation that enabled those markets caused soaring grain prices and the largest famines in history in the late 18th century. There was no absolute shortage of grain, it just was siphoned off to people in wealthy countries who could afford to buy it in the newly globalized capitalist system. I expect we are headed towards a repeat on larger scale, and Snyder's both complicates and reinforces this awful tendency.
Lastly, on liebensraum and genocide, the similarity to our own national expansion, to manifest destiny and the genocidal conquest of the continent, is inescapable but, of course, largely unspeakable and so unnoticed by most people. Always remember, we literally do not have a homeland here; it was all stolen, and violently. If you go back far enough, of course, that's true for most people's, but at the continental scale and with such ferocious efficiency, I believe we stand out as unique. Even Hitler could not come close to accomplishing what we Americans did.
Lastly, on liebensraum and genocide, the similarity to our own national expansion, to manifest destiny and the genocidal conquest of the continent, is inescapable but, of course, largely unspeakable and so unnoticed by most people. Always remember, we literally do not have a homeland here; it was all stolen, and violently. If you go back far enough, of course, that's true for most people's, but at the continental scale and with such ferocious efficiency, I believe we stand out as unique. Even Hitler could not come close to accomplishing what we Americans did.
7
Why is it that the genocide of Native People in the United States is never, if ever, recognized for what it is? Why is it excluded from this op-ed? Why?
23
It is a very significant omission!!!
The typical excuse is disease did the dirty work.
Wonderful and important article. Last week I found myself teaching climate to middle school students on 9/11 in a STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). We made a connection to terror and sustainability challenges the world faces. Why would people resort to such extreme groups as ISIS or Taliban? A perception (based in desperation, not rationality) that it is their only path to survival, desperation fueled by reduced capacity of the planetary systems to provide, and ignorance of science and tech solutions. Indeed, these topics are part of what we need to include in STEM education. I'm going to share this article with them in the coming week.
3
..........Hitler denied science and exploited ecological panic........
Gee almost sounds like a lot of Republicans........
Gee almost sounds like a lot of Republicans........
9
Oh yea, the tried (and tired) and true Hitler comparison - always a last refuge if you've nothing else.
It's worth considering that this article and most all coverage of climate change misses a potentially very large impact on wealthy countries: That we live in an era where, for the first time in history, those affected by our actions can see how disproportionately affected they are by forces they did not create and, more importantly, relatively small groups of these affected people can deliver large-scale violence and destruction to those they feel have wronged them.
In other words, if rich countries believe they can "adapt" to climate change behind high walls, systems of dikes to preserve their vulnerable coasts, sealed borders, localized food security and more, they are deluding themselves. The world where the disadvantaged can be effectively held under one's thumb while the advantaged remain comfortable no longer exists.
Not a pretty reason for rich countries to get serious about climate change, and fast, but a good one nonetheless.
In other words, if rich countries believe they can "adapt" to climate change behind high walls, systems of dikes to preserve their vulnerable coasts, sealed borders, localized food security and more, they are deluding themselves. The world where the disadvantaged can be effectively held under one's thumb while the advantaged remain comfortable no longer exists.
Not a pretty reason for rich countries to get serious about climate change, and fast, but a good one nonetheless.
3
The underlying problem is overpopulation! There is an ever increasing number of people competing for a finite set of resources. War is inevitable, as are other "natural" methods of thinning the population such as disease, flood, famine.
6
What a relief to see this sobering message where it belongs- in our major newspapers who are at least attempting to wake up human beings to the larger dangers afoot in this fragile world. We are too often lulled by superficial entertainment of current political theater or the personal self centeredness of our own too busy lives. Humans are capable of unspeakable horror as history tells us so it is no surprise that Inherent greed and evil lurks in the human psyche today as it always has. How quickly we forget at our own peril.
2
There were droughts and famines and wars and sociopaths recorded thousands of years back before the man made use of carbon products. Climate change has become the wizard behind the veil for the Left. The answer is Clinate Change whatever the question or the issue. And then once you agree with that, the solutions are redistribution of wealth and the elite deciding who warms their homes and who drives a car.
3
The second paragraph is revisionist nonsense trying to convert repulsion at Hitler's anti-Semitic genocide into support for action to fight global warming and attendant environmental degradation. Those are worthy ends; the scare tactics are unworthy means--and diminish the moral atrocity of the Holocaust.
8
Interesting essay. As one of the folks who brought genomics to crop improvement, I think the author is denying science, and its warnings. Yup, the world is in peril because we are no longer increasing food production faster than population growth, and distribution systems are pretty close to maxxed. There are far too few crop and livestock improvement scientists available to tailor new crop and animal breeds for the new environments we're creating. The problem is worst in developing countries, and in regions that have traditionally been net food importers. We're in for a bumpy ride.
4
Our worship of free-market capitalism, paired with our history of abundant natural resources, has thoroughly imbued the American spirit with a boom-town mentality in which we will always choose the greatest short-term gain and damn the consequences. Until and unless this changes, the outcome is quite predictable.
13
"The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science"
The Germans of the time accepted science, Hitler included. They accepted it uncritically and to extremes, such as the then-popular scientific theories of eugenics. They justified their horrors to themselves with science.
Their problem wasn't a lack of science. It was a lack of values to restrain them. They threw off all restraints, not science. They then used science and technological solutions to make worse that lack of restraint.
Without values, science can be used for evil, and they did.
The Germans of the time accepted science, Hitler included. They accepted it uncritically and to extremes, such as the then-popular scientific theories of eugenics. They justified their horrors to themselves with science.
Their problem wasn't a lack of science. It was a lack of values to restrain them. They threw off all restraints, not science. They then used science and technological solutions to make worse that lack of restraint.
Without values, science can be used for evil, and they did.
16
Re: "The Germans of the time accepted science, Hitler included."
Not really. Rather, too many of them were duped into accepting "junk science".
Not really. Rather, too many of them were duped into accepting "junk science".
Factors surrounding behaviors can be attributed to many things. Certainly, resource allocations can be a factor. But it is a stretch to conflate potential climate change impacts, which remains highly uncertain as to specific outcomes. For instance, recent science suggests lower rainfalls in the southern US based on current views of climate change. Resource allocation as an excuse for war or genocide will always exist but it is not a transitive property.
Good article. It might be helpful to include the concept of "planned parenthood" as well - completely voluntary - but humane, safe, and free or heavily subsidized methods of birth control - as a strategy as well. That's just simple math, and we already have many good options available.
1
By the second paragraph I knew China would be mentioned. Members of the new Chinese middle class were the first tourists to arrive here in Newport in April and many are still here in September. Mostly pleasant people - I've taken their cameras and photographed them on America's Cup Avenue and otherwise interacted with them thanks to their halting English. There were no vacationing Chinese here in summer 20 years ago. It's been a sudden change and now like us they will fight to hold on to their lifestyles which include expensive vacations.
2
American ag land is being bought up by other nations. However with multi-national holding companies owning big ag companies expect no sense of national pride or allegiance on the part of those corporate "persons". Those that control the food control the masses.
2
Yet crop prices are all at or near historic lows because both yield and output are continually rising faster than demand. What a conundrum.
Access to resources is a paramount concern for China, just as it is for the US. That this concern means China may occupy foreign lands is not supported by the evidence here which is their leasing of farmland in the Ukraine. This kind of violence depends on Step One: insistence on the ill-will of the Other.
1
"These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s"
Tying together those who question the degree of man's contribution to global warming by pointing to cyclic temperature variations over the centuries which deemphasizes man's contribution as "an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s" is a breath-taking charge, but not surprising in today's environment.
In any event, there is nothing to show that Hitler was anti-science. On the contrary, he based his "purification of the Aryan race" by eliminating the Jews based on the "science" of eugenics which was imported from the US.
The eugenics movement was well established in the United States before it spread to Germany. California, the foremost applier of eugenics, produced literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sent it to German scientists and medical professionals. By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was, in part, inspired by California's programs.
Even an institution as renowned as the Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
There may be settled law, but not so much settled science as Galileo pointed out.
Tying together those who question the degree of man's contribution to global warming by pointing to cyclic temperature variations over the centuries which deemphasizes man's contribution as "an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s" is a breath-taking charge, but not surprising in today's environment.
In any event, there is nothing to show that Hitler was anti-science. On the contrary, he based his "purification of the Aryan race" by eliminating the Jews based on the "science" of eugenics which was imported from the US.
The eugenics movement was well established in the United States before it spread to Germany. California, the foremost applier of eugenics, produced literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sent it to German scientists and medical professionals. By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was, in part, inspired by California's programs.
Even an institution as renowned as the Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
There may be settled law, but not so much settled science as Galileo pointed out.
1
I fear that Mr. Snyder has fallen victim to that same myopic presentism that justified the military campaigns he cites. He concludes the article by presenting us with a choice : shall we choose "science" or "ideology"? But this differentiation that science is often but the tool of ideology and that ultimately one can design a scientific experiment in order to prove just about anything, though reality as it is lived may contend. There is something decidedly inhuman about neglecting the HUMAN cost of ecological crisis in the final decision; only snobbish academics in peril of derailing from the tenure track would choose science for science's sake. Rather, we ought to pursue a path of ecological responsibility because there are human lives at stake. I don't think science will mind.
this is inflammatory. if you are going to use a specific example, why not use our own country?
Very interesting connection of dots between the 1930's and today. I for one believe science and innovation will continue to find a way to enhance life; we are not even close to the end of human growth. In my 64 year lifetime I have seen Malthusian predictions fail to materialize. Human panic is something real to fear, however. One twist: Can you be sure the next great panic will not come from the catastrophic climate change hypothesis itself? Science is hard and needs continual updates and several distinguished scientists are questioning the modelers claims and assumptions.
1
I dedicate this article to the 16 Deniers.
1
Is it accidental that the article fails to mention all the anti-immigrant, and specifically anti Mexican sentiments expressed by many in the USA? As if the USA is immune from such a cancer.
Anyone who thinks that the Holocaust was a one-off is deluding themselves. There have been many through history, some larger than others. Man's susceptibility to fear and loathing is the fatal weakness that knows no cure. With populations exploding and the world's resources becoming dearer, the makings of a vast calamity is not so far-fetched. Unfortunately, denying its possibility will only get you through the next few short hours.
3
Fascinating article. The idea that environmental collapse due to climate change will cause wars, mass migration and other such conflicts has been with us for quite a while. Thomas Homer-Dixon published a book or two on this years ago and I'm sure the idea has been with us for decades. Many people have pointed out the connection in Rwanda, though that has also been connected to the effects of globalization, which encouraged the planting of cash crops which were unable to feed the population when the price of those crops collapsed. However, it is good to sound the alarm again. The author is certainly correct in pointing out the irresponsibility of the US public and political class in refusing to confront the reality of climate change even as they are directly responsible for creating most of it. The US exports the costs of its greed and overconsumption onto the rest of the world. However, I would add another point: as a Canadian, I do not at all doubt that the US will turn on its neighbors if the costs of climate change do come home to roost. If an environmental collapse occurs, say, in drought-stricken California or across the rest of the US Southwest, I am concerned about the consequences to Canada, its water, and its agricultural land. The idea of using violence to seek "lebensraum" is not confined to people in the developing world. Any group of people can come to think in the same way, given the right incentives.
2
The Holocaust was not perpetrated in America by Americans against other Americans.
The Russians call World War II the Great Patriotic War. A war that cost the Soviet Union 27.5 million lives.
The Chinese call World War II the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. Between 15-30 million Chinese died during World War II.
About 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of Turks.
About 1 million Hutu and Tutsi were killed by the Hutu in Rwanda.
African Americans were enslaved in America by other Americans.
Native Americans were colonized in America by other Americans.
In Operation Protective Edge in Gaza about 2100 Palestinians were killed by Israel and 75-80% were civilians including 550 kids.
About 3 million citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have died in their civil war.
Nearly 2 million Sudanese died in their civil war.
Why are there holocausts and the Holocaust?
Denying humanity is the root of all evil. Some have proclaimed scientific justification for enslavement, genocide and colonization.
The Russians call World War II the Great Patriotic War. A war that cost the Soviet Union 27.5 million lives.
The Chinese call World War II the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. Between 15-30 million Chinese died during World War II.
About 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of Turks.
About 1 million Hutu and Tutsi were killed by the Hutu in Rwanda.
African Americans were enslaved in America by other Americans.
Native Americans were colonized in America by other Americans.
In Operation Protective Edge in Gaza about 2100 Palestinians were killed by Israel and 75-80% were civilians including 550 kids.
About 3 million citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have died in their civil war.
Nearly 2 million Sudanese died in their civil war.
Why are there holocausts and the Holocaust?
Denying humanity is the root of all evil. Some have proclaimed scientific justification for enslavement, genocide and colonization.
12
Just back from 9 weeks in Southern Africa. The Chinese influence is everywhere, particularly in Namibia, where even the most humble and poorly paid of tour guides has a smattering of polite Chines phrases.
5
"Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past." So true.
Also, "The chief Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, could therefore define the purpose of a war of extermination...." Goebbels would have applauded this sentence: "By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites." Propaganda at its best.
So, please allow some truth to be told. Climate change is real, and humankind is the reason. There are too many people, especially in Africa and Asia, and those populations are growing too fast. Instead of sending food to Africa, we should send them condoms.
Also, "The chief Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, could therefore define the purpose of a war of extermination...." Goebbels would have applauded this sentence: "By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites." Propaganda at its best.
So, please allow some truth to be told. Climate change is real, and humankind is the reason. There are too many people, especially in Africa and Asia, and those populations are growing too fast. Instead of sending food to Africa, we should send them condoms.
7
Yes, in the matter of climate science expertise denial, he missed all the other English-speaking nations, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand which have been taken over by big fossil money and advocacy.
Actually the Nazi regime went a lot further than mere "food scare" on the Germans: there are very good footage by the US Department of Defense testifying that the Nazi were fabricating world domination and in particular were interested - for instance - in conquering the then Czechoslovakia's Skoda factory seen as a vital stock of raw material like iron ore and steel to develop more deadly weapons, but mostly were praying upon Czech ingenuity in vehicle building. All that was planned "scientifically" at university levels, and an excuse was needed for invading Czechoslovakia; the "Sudeten crisis" was crafted as the main thrust, where the Nazis were claiming that that territory was part of the German Reich being peopled by Czechs of German descent; and when the German army was marching along the Czechoslovakian streets, any Czech's resistance was thwarted asserting that the Germans were illegitimately attacked. All that to say that as the article points out, an "inversion of logic" is so exploited in such a way that any twisted statement by the power turns into an accepted idea as in Joseph Goebbels' "lie a million times until that lie becomes truth" is the case.
"The Holocaust may seem a distant horror . . ."
Dylann Storm Roof massacres people in their church with the same sentiments as the Einsatzgruppe commander just to remind us that it does not really seem all that distant.
Dylann Storm Roof massacres people in their church with the same sentiments as the Einsatzgruppe commander just to remind us that it does not really seem all that distant.
2
Mr. Snyder makes good points about the clever smoke screen of Lebensraum, needed to insure adequate food supply, used by the Nazis to justify the holocaust.
However, he falls into a similar trap when he, on the one hand, criticizes climate change deniers for ignoring science, but doesn’t point out the inconsistencies of those who believe in climate change but turn their backs on science when it comes to modern agricultural technologies such as GMO food production. These same people vehemently oppose GMO foods, in spite of wide spread scientific evidence that its consumption is totally safe, and allows us to produce more food using less land, less water & fewer pesticides than ever before. Frequently it is the same people who so passionately advocate for the value organic foods when, again scientific evidence of its benefits is totally lacking.
By all means let's rigorously use science to shape our policies, but consistently please.
However, he falls into a similar trap when he, on the one hand, criticizes climate change deniers for ignoring science, but doesn’t point out the inconsistencies of those who believe in climate change but turn their backs on science when it comes to modern agricultural technologies such as GMO food production. These same people vehemently oppose GMO foods, in spite of wide spread scientific evidence that its consumption is totally safe, and allows us to produce more food using less land, less water & fewer pesticides than ever before. Frequently it is the same people who so passionately advocate for the value organic foods when, again scientific evidence of its benefits is totally lacking.
By all means let's rigorously use science to shape our policies, but consistently please.
178
GMO crops use more water and are drenched in pesticides, and as an added bonus, are LESS able to withstand varying climate shifts than their organic counterparts.
3
OMG, using this issue in order to flog GMOs.
This article http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/gm-crops-do-not-increase-yields.pdf
cites several scientific reports claiming that GMO agriculture produces significantly higher yields.
This article http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/gm-crops-do-not-increase-yields.pdf
cites several scientific reports claiming that GMO agriculture produces significantly higher yields.
1
I fear you are under the mistaken belief that populations can expand infinitely and the earth can be plundered without consequence. It should also be noted research shows that GMO foods do not carry the nutritional suite of vitamins and minerals that foods grown from heritage seeds do. Organically produced foods do not have the downstream polluting consequence of GMO crops, many of which rely on massive quantities of nitrogen-based chemicals to flourish.
3
History should be a teacher and this article can serve to teach.
Except for the last two paragraphs, perhaps. These are expressions more of the authors opinion which conflates as if cause and effect.
It might be best to separate these ideas and pursue a solution to each, instead of implying technology will solve man's apparent hatred for man.
Except for the last two paragraphs, perhaps. These are expressions more of the authors opinion which conflates as if cause and effect.
It might be best to separate these ideas and pursue a solution to each, instead of implying technology will solve man's apparent hatred for man.
2
To me, the point of the article is nicely summarized in those paragraphs, though perhaps there is some better locution than "science" to describe the collected knowledge and expertise of humanity. Denying it is certainly disastrous, and not acting on it has the same effect, so in effect laziness, despair, and apathy are problematical. This is the problem, that people are too ready to be told there is no problem until it is too late.
There is no chance we can return to a simpler less populated time without the kind of devastation we are now seeing in Europe and elsewhere, so wise people would do well to embrace renewable energy solutions which are making great progress. It's even good business and a great jobs program.
"Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?
"Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past."
There is no chance we can return to a simpler less populated time without the kind of devastation we are now seeing in Europe and elsewhere, so wise people would do well to embrace renewable energy solutions which are making great progress. It's even good business and a great jobs program.
"Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?
"Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past."
Then there is the science of food industries that create fake "food" that actually is killing people...tastes great, always want more, more, more (insatiable demand is engineered into the food) and eventually kills the consumer. Same principle as genocide for resources except producers can get richer and richer while the masses slowly die.
2
Mr. Snyder's indicts the greedy and unrepentant United States for destroying the earth's climate. He further declares that man made global warming has been an established scientific fact for decades. Worse yet, he likens anyone who dares to disagree with the pseudo-scientific theology of man -made global warming as uncomfortably close being intellectually equivalent to Adolf Hitler and his policy of Lebensraum to meet Germany's need for living space and agricultural capacity.
The religion of man-made global warming is really about a massive redistribution of wealth and the political and social transformation of the United States into a socialist "utopia" directed by the political and intellectual elites such Mr. Snyder. It is evolving into a something akin to a fundamentalist religion with its own theology, political and scientific high priests and their minions like Mr. Snyder, and anyone who has the audacity to question or disagree is a heretic and must be either converted or have their career or reputation destroyed. Sound familiar ?
Mr. Snyder and his fellow travelers are a greater threat to the American way of life than man -made global warming.
The religion of man-made global warming is really about a massive redistribution of wealth and the political and social transformation of the United States into a socialist "utopia" directed by the political and intellectual elites such Mr. Snyder. It is evolving into a something akin to a fundamentalist religion with its own theology, political and scientific high priests and their minions like Mr. Snyder, and anyone who has the audacity to question or disagree is a heretic and must be either converted or have their career or reputation destroyed. Sound familiar ?
Mr. Snyder and his fellow travelers are a greater threat to the American way of life than man -made global warming.
3
The greatest threat to the United States is the G.O.P., and it's morally vicious greed, racism, willful ignorance and embrace of elitist economics, militarism, unqualified support of Israel, and denial of basic science and education in its human aspects. In short, fascism is the driving force here with these people.
See A. Schmookler's, "What We're Up Against."
See A. Schmookler's, "What We're Up Against."
1
Thanks for your opinion Allan, clearly it is a very strongly held; however, it's a common one I see frequently from those on the denial side of the issue. My question to you and to those who take this position is and has always been what is the factual basis for the position taken other than the dark conspiracy theories you insinuate to be the case, e.g., the pseudo-scientific theology of man-made global warming being the underlying strategy employed by the intellectual elites to transform the country into a socialist utopia. By what logic do you arrive at such a conclusion? How does one morally come to that position and to your final conclusion re the ultimate danger to our way of life? The final query is always what if you are wrong? I have yet to get satisfactory answers to these questions.
"Mr. Snyder and his fellow travelers are a greater threat to the American way of life than man -made global warming."
---------
You certainly confirm the fears of essayist, George Johnson, "Science Loses Out as the World of Hand-Picked Truths Widens", elsewhere in the Times this weekend: "On one front after another, the hard-won consensus of science is expected to accommodate personal beliefs, about the safety of vaccines, G.M.O.crops, fluoridation or cellphone radio waves, along with the validity of climate change."
---------
You certainly confirm the fears of essayist, George Johnson, "Science Loses Out as the World of Hand-Picked Truths Widens", elsewhere in the Times this weekend: "On one front after another, the hard-won consensus of science is expected to accommodate personal beliefs, about the safety of vaccines, G.M.O.crops, fluoridation or cellphone radio waves, along with the validity of climate change."
1
This article is a fine example of why I read the NYT. Snyder's visions are frightening, but critically important, and his arguments and comparisons are impelling. With many thanks --
7
I had never before heard the connection between the genocide of 6 million people by the Germans because Germany needed more land for food. Although I understand the connection between global warming and change in productive agricultural land within nations, I think the stronger point is that increasing populations of people demanding higher standards of living, including food, could result in the next global war for resources. The Romans attempted to control the conquering Goths and Burgundians by ceding them settlements in Gaul. Unfortunately, a little land is never enough; first borders are ignored and then more land is taken by force. We can see from this article that history could easily repeat itself in Africa or elsewhere by the Chinese.
4
Dear me, is Mr. Snyder really a historian or a hysterical with a part time job writing speeches for Liebermann?
One thing is certain, all he has is hatred for Germans and things he does not understand like e.g. the 21. century.
The days of German Nazi's are gone and agricultural science has made vast advances.
This world is still able to feed it's population, the problem is somewhere else, it is in uncontrolled population growth triggered by religious beliefs and the notion that "my religion" has a right to conquer the earth and make it the House of Peace.
Irrational thinking of Mr. Snyder is pretty much in the same league as the entirely irrational thinking of religious extremists who believe that all it takes is to flood this planet with enough believers and their offspring in order to conquer it and live off the fruits of the labour of the unbelievers.
Yes, we will see a fight for "Lebensraum" but not because of a planned genocide or a flooding of coastal areas, but because some countries simply do not get it.
Just look at the population growth of places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and others.
Today, they are still able to provide enough food for heir population, but unless they understand that planned parenthood is a necessity they will outgrow their resources and will be forced to look for alternatives.
Not because of some mad man's believes but because of real necessity.
As the onnly alternative would be starvation.
So stop religions and get real.
One thing is certain, all he has is hatred for Germans and things he does not understand like e.g. the 21. century.
The days of German Nazi's are gone and agricultural science has made vast advances.
This world is still able to feed it's population, the problem is somewhere else, it is in uncontrolled population growth triggered by religious beliefs and the notion that "my religion" has a right to conquer the earth and make it the House of Peace.
Irrational thinking of Mr. Snyder is pretty much in the same league as the entirely irrational thinking of religious extremists who believe that all it takes is to flood this planet with enough believers and their offspring in order to conquer it and live off the fruits of the labour of the unbelievers.
Yes, we will see a fight for "Lebensraum" but not because of a planned genocide or a flooding of coastal areas, but because some countries simply do not get it.
Just look at the population growth of places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and others.
Today, they are still able to provide enough food for heir population, but unless they understand that planned parenthood is a necessity they will outgrow their resources and will be forced to look for alternatives.
Not because of some mad man's believes but because of real necessity.
As the onnly alternative would be starvation.
So stop religions and get real.
10
The objective of almost every country's policy is to increase population, because this increases its economic and military power. Every country also tries to obtain control of as many resources as possible, to sustain its population and raise the standard of living, and this continually leads to military action, such as that of the US in the Middle East. There is little morality now in the national competition for resources and no reason to think this will improve in the future. The world's most powerful religious authority, the Pope, sustains a policy of maximal reproduction, and so do many Protestant and Islamic religious authorities. Actions to limit population, such as the one-child policy of China and the less-successful efforts of India, are widely viewed as immoral.
The problem for the future is bringing population growth under control. Whether global warming will reduce the Earth's capacity to produce food is unknown, but it is known that the Earth cannot sustain an exponentially increasing population.
The problem for the future is bringing population growth under control. Whether global warming will reduce the Earth's capacity to produce food is unknown, but it is known that the Earth cannot sustain an exponentially increasing population.
22
Competitive population growth for power and control was the first cause of war, and it will evidently be the last as well.
Readers should note that this author, Timothy Snyder, has written two books on this subject, both of which are notable for controversy about his sweeping generalizations.
No doubt he knows the material. What he does with it creates controversy among others who know the material. That is extensive. I won't try to summarize it in a short note, since that could not be fair. I would however draw readers to Google the author and his two books before accepting his generalizations.
In particular, he is an historian who is practicing layman's psychiatry on a complexly twisted and sick man, Hitler, and then generalizing from that about the motives of millions of others over many years of activity. Doing so, he disagrees with many other knowledgeable people.
New thinking is valuable to understanding, even if rejected, because it explores assumptions and tests ideas. That is not the same as accepting sweeping generalization uncritically.
No doubt he knows the material. What he does with it creates controversy among others who know the material. That is extensive. I won't try to summarize it in a short note, since that could not be fair. I would however draw readers to Google the author and his two books before accepting his generalizations.
In particular, he is an historian who is practicing layman's psychiatry on a complexly twisted and sick man, Hitler, and then generalizing from that about the motives of millions of others over many years of activity. Doing so, he disagrees with many other knowledgeable people.
New thinking is valuable to understanding, even if rejected, because it explores assumptions and tests ideas. That is not the same as accepting sweeping generalization uncritically.
65
Some of the commenters are saying that we can't equate climate change with genocide. What do they think will happen when the coasts flood and millions, if not billions, of people move inland? Will they be welcome with open arms? Although they weren't killing them, lots of people in places like Texas were angry and resentful when the Katrina victims arrived. How will they feel when a billion people arrive? The military has already said we should prepare for wars over land when people are displaced from their homes because of climate change. Do the people who say war and genocide have nothing to do with climate change know more than the army does?
149
Syria leads the way to the future global collision of overpopulation and climate change.
2
You think climate change will drive billions moving inland? Simply not even a part of the most dire forecasts, try to stay withing the realm of reality. The fact that most live near coasts does not place most in flood zones.
Many people know more than the army. What a silly question.
"Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past."
Well-said. What I did not see in this commentary, though, are two issues that the left continues to deny in the scientific realm.
First, corn ethanol. Subsidizing corn ethanol creates all the wrong incentives, and environmentalists are in agreement that these subsidies should cease immediately. It makes no economic sense, it makes no environmental sense, and it makes no engineering sense. In addition, it creates the wrong incentives for farmers, who now grow corn not for food but for gas tanks.
Second, genetically modified organisms. The science is settled, and GMO's are safe and create more hardy crops against pests and disease. In addition, they often are less susceptible to drought conditions. Let's start using them worldwide.
Well-said. What I did not see in this commentary, though, are two issues that the left continues to deny in the scientific realm.
First, corn ethanol. Subsidizing corn ethanol creates all the wrong incentives, and environmentalists are in agreement that these subsidies should cease immediately. It makes no economic sense, it makes no environmental sense, and it makes no engineering sense. In addition, it creates the wrong incentives for farmers, who now grow corn not for food but for gas tanks.
Second, genetically modified organisms. The science is settled, and GMO's are safe and create more hardy crops against pests and disease. In addition, they often are less susceptible to drought conditions. Let's start using them worldwide.
18
"the left", sigh
While I agree there is much prejudice about GMOs which we all need and use, some of which is sadly ill informed, and prejudice against big ag, specifically Monsanto, there is some excuse for it in Monsanto's own declaration that they want to control world food. There are many cases where they victimize people trying to make a living and prosecute anyone who steps on their toes. And the idea that a poor farmer has to buy nnew seeds year after year is typical of the new ownership classes, making billions from the needs of struggling working stiffs.
As to corn ethanol, that too was misguided but it is hard to reverse on it, giving our sluggish legislative response across the board to making necessary changes.
And just to triple my radical "left" opinions, I'm also pro nuclear, though sadly that is subject to the same difficulties as we face elsewhere; the financial and political resources to build nearly fully recyclable plants instand of grandfathering the level 2 ones that strain infrastructure with their continually increasing waste.
So don't lump "left" in with lack of knowledge. There's a lot more ignorance and prejudice and denial on the "right", readily observable in the presidential candidates and our Congress.
While I agree there is much prejudice about GMOs which we all need and use, some of which is sadly ill informed, and prejudice against big ag, specifically Monsanto, there is some excuse for it in Monsanto's own declaration that they want to control world food. There are many cases where they victimize people trying to make a living and prosecute anyone who steps on their toes. And the idea that a poor farmer has to buy nnew seeds year after year is typical of the new ownership classes, making billions from the needs of struggling working stiffs.
As to corn ethanol, that too was misguided but it is hard to reverse on it, giving our sluggish legislative response across the board to making necessary changes.
And just to triple my radical "left" opinions, I'm also pro nuclear, though sadly that is subject to the same difficulties as we face elsewhere; the financial and political resources to build nearly fully recyclable plants instand of grandfathering the level 2 ones that strain infrastructure with their continually increasing waste.
So don't lump "left" in with lack of knowledge. There's a lot more ignorance and prejudice and denial on the "right", readily observable in the presidential candidates and our Congress.
1
Nuclear power is safe too.
Great, sobering article. I will go and rewatch “3 days of the Condor” the amazing Sidney Pollack’s gem.
1
The Earth's resources are finite, and thinking the planet will be able to feed the billions of humans that are going to be added to an already too large humanity and not crash is just foolish. Infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. Of course many will say this is Malthusian, thinking Malthus’ theories proven incorrect because the mass die-off of humans he predicted did not come to pass, but Malthus was right, he just did not anticipate humanity being able to pawn the dying off on other species; by the time humanity has grown by billions more the only life on this planet will be us humans, the species we exploit and the pests we can't eradicate; not much of a legacy for future generations. We will have forsaken our children’s future by having too many of them!
21
"We will have forsaken our children’s future by having too many of them!"
Yes Indeed. But we have been doing this since the beginning & will continue along this terrible path. It is already Much too Late.
The Insane need to Populate every inch of this tiny Planet will continue right up until the day it doesn't.
If you are fortunate enough to have a Good Life - do what you can to enjoy it while it is here. And hopefully do the little you can to Help others & Possibly pass on Good Will to those you can.
Yes Indeed. But we have been doing this since the beginning & will continue along this terrible path. It is already Much too Late.
The Insane need to Populate every inch of this tiny Planet will continue right up until the day it doesn't.
If you are fortunate enough to have a Good Life - do what you can to enjoy it while it is here. And hopefully do the little you can to Help others & Possibly pass on Good Will to those you can.
Exactly. We are reducing a world of beauty and diversity of species to one of the lowest common denominator. There is a real connection between over 7 billion humans and less than 3000 wild tigers and all the other bell weather species that are being squeezed out by our need to reproduce far beyond the capacity of the planet to support us. There is only so much of earth to go around. If we use it up, everything else must by necessity be reduced. Eventually it has to catch up to us. Of course, by that time any semblance of lifestyle will have gone by the way as we are reduced to just survival.
1
If we Americans tomorrow stop burning all forms of carbon, it will have no discernable effect overall. If the entire world tomorrow stops burning carbon, it will have no discernable effect. The effort worldwide to take the truly meaningfully steps are simply not politically, morally or logically feasible with the worlds present population or mindset. However after a century of worldwide famine, violent mass migrations and of course war, we might by then decide it is in humanity's best interest to do so. So, in the time being, move further inland, stock your pantry's with copious amounts of non-perishable food, buy a gun, learn how to shoot it and the last, but certainly not least, harden your heart, to the things that we as individual's and as a nation will have to do in order to survive, because the great die-off is right around the corner.
4
If the troubles are so long lasting, your shelves won't hold enough to make a difference. Your ammo won't last either.
Their is no individualist, survivalist, way out of the global warming troubles. This has been known for along time. John Donne told us in the early 1600's, no man is an island. No man can make himself an island apart from something like global warming.
Their is no individualist, survivalist, way out of the global warming troubles. This has been known for along time. John Donne told us in the early 1600's, no man is an island. No man can make himself an island apart from something like global warming.
4
What nonsense, and dangerous, at that. What we need to understand is we are all in this together and must work together to save ourselves, not divide up into selfish, "me-first killer" groups favored by SCARED conservatives and those needing violence.
4
Surprise me. End your comment with the words, "I am not a scientist."
The claim that "that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program" is both ridiculous on its face, in addition to the obvious fact that the author of this piece never read the Nazi literature in which they explain their reasons for wanting to annihilate the Jews.
How would the ideas of anyone, including the Jews, pose a threat to a violent expansionist program. A violent program is by definition a program that is enacted through the brutal use of force.
In addition one would think that the people of the nations whose land was being expanded into and their ideas about it would have posed the bigger threat. Certainly a greater threat that the ideas of individual Jews living in lands that were not part of the expansionist plans, such as France, Italy or the Netherlands.
How would the ideas of anyone, including the Jews, pose a threat to a violent expansionist program. A violent program is by definition a program that is enacted through the brutal use of force.
In addition one would think that the people of the nations whose land was being expanded into and their ideas about it would have posed the bigger threat. Certainly a greater threat that the ideas of individual Jews living in lands that were not part of the expansionist plans, such as France, Italy or the Netherlands.
13
If the troubles are so long lasting, your shelves won't hold enough to make a difference. Your ammo won't last either.
Their is no individualist, survivalist, way out of the global warming troubles. This has been known for along time. John Donne told us in the early 1600's, no man is an island. No man can make himself an island apart from something like global warming.
Their is no individualist, survivalist, way out of the global warming troubles. This has been known for along time. John Donne told us in the early 1600's, no man is an island. No man can make himself an island apart from something like global warming.
1
Above all, Jewish pacifism seems to have angered the little man.
Attempting to attach the potential for genocide to climate change is simple desperation. The atrocities in Rwanda may have been over land but had nothing to do with AGW.
12
Rwanda's repeating episodes of mass murder appear to be the only thing limiting its population.
There are strong scientific studies of global warming that can show the earth will have warmed anywhere between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century if we do not SOON start controlling emissions. Scientists suggest we struggle to keep this rise to 3.6 degrees F; this 3.6 in itself will cause large scale changes to the world economy, agriculture and stability.
No desperation here; climate change could be catastrophic and I suggest you start reading, FAST. Combined with over-population we do have the oncoming potential for genocide and other unimaginables.
You do not understand.
No desperation here; climate change could be catastrophic and I suggest you start reading, FAST. Combined with over-population we do have the oncoming potential for genocide and other unimaginables.
You do not understand.
3
Brand, sure, creating a bridge between Nazi atrocities and climate change may seem a bit of a stretch, but I would think most would agree that these conflicts always arise out of competition for scarce resources. In countries where breads and grains are a staple of the daily diet, a sharp contraction in supply as a result of drought can lead to price increases beyond the reach of many. It would not seem implausible that in this type of landscape escalation could result in conflict.
1
We are the proverbial frog in the pot on the stove unaware of the rising temperature of the water around us. There is one major difference: our flippers have reached over the edge of the pot and are turning the heat up. There is no invisible hand warming our water and all our prayers to heaven will not change physics.
257
Australia, unfortunately, joins the U.S. as a place where political and economic elites deny climate change. Just this week, the minister of immigration was recorded on microphone as telling a joke to the prime minister, who chuckled, about how the small Island nations in the South Pacific were going to sink into the ocean soon. I met two government economists who told me to my face that they believe that global warming is a fraud.
5
Not a fraud, simply overly exaggerated and laced with unprovable supposition and uneconomic prescriptions.
Suggesting that Hitler's schemes for world conquest and hatred of the Jews was somehow based on ecological issues is somewhat ingenious. He perhaps justified his military actions in this fashion but his hatred of the Jews had deep antecedent roots in Europe's attitudes towards the Jews as Christ killers. Similarly, the conquest of foreign lands goes back to Europe's colonial expansion world wide well before Hitler decided the German people needed Lebenstraum. I suggest the psychopathology displayed by Hitler coupled with Europe's genocide of native peoples for centuries before him is a better explanation than putting things in the context of climate change and need for food supply.
19
Hitler as a child was an avid reader of dime store novels about cowboys and Indians in the American west. Later in life, pursuing his attack to the east, he referred to the Slavs and other inhabitants there as 'redskins'. As Snyder points out in his latest book, Hitler dreamed of conquering the east for Germany the same way the US conquered the west for the white settlers.
Apparently the author has not heard that, using the most accurate data available, RSS, UAH & USCRN, the Earth quit warming 10-20 years ago.
Many solar experts are predicting that we are entering a climate cooling based on the link between the sun and climate, something the $1.5 TRILLON climate alarm industry ignores.
Many solar experts are predicting that we are entering a climate cooling based on the link between the sun and climate, something the $1.5 TRILLON climate alarm industry ignores.
6
That would be convenient. A fantasy, but a nice one.
6
This is dishonest from start to finish. For example, the temperature record:
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/131-years-of-global-warming-in-26-se...
"131 years of global warming in 26 seconds"
How this decline (which even on those terms is now over) was created was by using the hot spike years 1997-98 (previous El Nino) as a "low". Move the goalposts much?
Hottest years (NASA Climate Change site is an excellent resource for facts presented in a useful format). Below are the 10 hottest years in descending order:
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224
2014 (about to be exceeded by 2015)
2010
2005
1998
2013
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224
As to money, the trillions are going to big fossil, and the scientific resources and support are not at all comparable.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies...
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/131-years-of-global-warming-in-26-se...
"131 years of global warming in 26 seconds"
How this decline (which even on those terms is now over) was created was by using the hot spike years 1997-98 (previous El Nino) as a "low". Move the goalposts much?
Hottest years (NASA Climate Change site is an excellent resource for facts presented in a useful format). Below are the 10 hottest years in descending order:
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224
2014 (about to be exceeded by 2015)
2010
2005
1998
2013
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224
As to money, the trillions are going to big fossil, and the scientific resources and support are not at all comparable.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies...
4
You obviously don't get your information from respected journals like AAAS "Science".
3
As noted by the article, the resource wars are already starting.
The Green Revolution has lead to this unprecedented increase in human population, and in the areas of the world that are the poorest, driest, and most vulnerable, the population growth remains exponential. As we see so graphically now, people will NOT sit in place and starve, like they "used to" but will get up and move.
Will we stop them?
Should we stop them?
If we don't stop them, what then?
What happens when we can't feed them any more, because we can't feed our own children?
One example:
India is currently building a wall along the Bangladeshi border. Bangladesh is projected to be completely subsumed by the Indian Ocean by sea level rise due to climate change/fossil fuel burning. Bangladesh has 147+ million people and one of the fastest population growth of all nations, because of religion, lack of education/access to birth control for women.
Where are these people going to go, when the water comes?
What will happen, when they start beating on that wall?
All of our problems come down to this one problem: too many people.
The Green Revolution has lead to this unprecedented increase in human population, and in the areas of the world that are the poorest, driest, and most vulnerable, the population growth remains exponential. As we see so graphically now, people will NOT sit in place and starve, like they "used to" but will get up and move.
Will we stop them?
Should we stop them?
If we don't stop them, what then?
What happens when we can't feed them any more, because we can't feed our own children?
One example:
India is currently building a wall along the Bangladeshi border. Bangladesh is projected to be completely subsumed by the Indian Ocean by sea level rise due to climate change/fossil fuel burning. Bangladesh has 147+ million people and one of the fastest population growth of all nations, because of religion, lack of education/access to birth control for women.
Where are these people going to go, when the water comes?
What will happen, when they start beating on that wall?
All of our problems come down to this one problem: too many people.
26
I expect all accessible fossil fuel to be burned because fossil fuel is the only thing sustaining the present population.
You have. Got to be kidding. Mr. Snyder obviously did a lot of historic research and came to hypothesis in a well written piece. But to compare the holocaust with a half degree rise in global tempuratures over the next 100 years is complete moonbats.
9
I heard this week that the predicted rise by the end of this century is between 2 and 3 degrees C. Latest figures seem to indicate largest potion of half percent rise has already happened. The Northwest Passage is open! Doesn't that indicate something.
1
Scientific reports by hundreds of scientists indicate the world temp can and will increase between 4 and 11 degrees F by the end of this century if we do not move on controlling it SOON.
They recommend we keep it below 4 degrees and even then horrendous changes in world economy, agriculture and turmoil.
The higher end numbers would be catastrophic.
You really need to get our of your denial and do some reading.
They recommend we keep it below 4 degrees and even then horrendous changes in world economy, agriculture and turmoil.
The higher end numbers would be catastrophic.
You really need to get our of your denial and do some reading.
1
Food and water - and probably the latter first - will be the underlying cause for the next major war even if we try and find other reasons for the confrontation and killing.
A viable solution to both looming shortages is already with us - cut down on our dependence on ineffective convertors that we now use by making small dietary changes. Meat production is a terribly inefficient way to convert grain to protein and most wasteful in terms of water utilisation - in addition to being a major source of greenhouse emissions.
A viable solution to both looming shortages is already with us - cut down on our dependence on ineffective convertors that we now use by making small dietary changes. Meat production is a terribly inefficient way to convert grain to protein and most wasteful in terms of water utilisation - in addition to being a major source of greenhouse emissions.
332
About a billion human beings lack access to clean fresh drinking water, Another billion persons do not have sanitary storm, sewer and garbage water disposal. About 800 million human beings are starving and/or malnourished. About 17 million people die of infectious disease.
What, if anything, does this have to with climate change or science?
What, if anything, does this have to with climate change or science?
This article strings together some facts with a large amount of attempted justification. Germany did not have a problem with being able to feed its people and Hitler did not select the Jews for extermination because they were scientists. As an industralized nation, Germany could sell its manufactured goods for an ample supply of food. Aside from his own personal hatred of Jews, a not uncommon feeling among many Europeans [England didn't allow Jews to flee there because they did not want to be "invaded" by a people they had expelled centuries before, France also had a large anti-Semitic population], Hitler had to select a disliked minority group that had some economic power so could be blamed for financial woes. He wanted Germany to return to a farming country because he was a primitive, not because he was afraid of food shortages. Sure, during bad economic times there are food shortages and some people turn toward violence, but these are not farm experts who study gross per acre yields plotted against expanding populations [in fact, farming societies have a much higher birth rate and history has clearly shown that industralization of a society leads to increased economic health]. Mass murders occurred for a variety of justifications. The article is poorly thought out.
56
This is so far the only realistic response to the article
In as far as Darwinism is science evolution is based on conflict for land and food. Therefore one cannot really say that the denial of the hope that "science" will continue to provide sufficient food for the world's population is a denial of science. It is the denial of the hope that people will work together to provide for all, rather than compete as the Nazis did to provide for themselves, as in "survival of the fittest" and "the selfish gene."
72
Evolution is about producing successful offspring who produce successful offspring in their turn. All else is secondary.
" I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave....Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs."
- Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 2-3
It's important to read books before criticizing them.
- Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 2-3
It's important to read books before criticizing them.
Unfortunately, those who believe in a technological solution simply are not living in reality. They do not or are not willing to accept that every step further toward technical progress, inflicts irreparable harm on the fragile eco system. Irrigation diverts water from its natural streams and rivers, and scientific manipulation of the food supply with hybrids and genetically altered clones, threatens the heirloom varieties which they are dependent on. As science tries to find alternatives to war and conquest, it inevitably ends up creating problems which are worse, creating an endless cycle. Each new discovery is an attempt to divert the outcome of the last. As realist, Oswald Spengler noted: "Optimism is cowardice." To Hitler and the Germans, the choice was simple, the only way humanity could have been spared the technological catastrophe was to abandon optimistic pipe dreams that science was the answer. From their perspective, science or at least the type of science that dominated the world today, was the problem.
44
Hitler was a JERK! That's all one needs to know.
Where does one begin with such a blatant Globull Warming propaganda peice such as this one?
"The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program."
Really? It had nothing to do with Hitler's fanatical hatred of the Jews? Thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us.
"The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science."
It was more a corruption of science in order to prove that Jews were "untermensch", i.e. subhuman. The Globull Warmist cult knows a few things about corrupting science they have had their thumb on the scales for decades. Now that mother nature has been most uncooperative these past eighteen years and has refused to validate their expensive models they have become ever more shrill. Thus we get articles such as these that would make Joseph Goebbels blush.
Argumentum ad Hitlerum, a tactic those who have lost the argument resort to as a last chance to win. I guess we should take it as a sign that the left will soon be looking for new horse to bet on now that Globull Warming is found wanting.
"The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program."
Really? It had nothing to do with Hitler's fanatical hatred of the Jews? Thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us.
"The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science."
It was more a corruption of science in order to prove that Jews were "untermensch", i.e. subhuman. The Globull Warmist cult knows a few things about corrupting science they have had their thumb on the scales for decades. Now that mother nature has been most uncooperative these past eighteen years and has refused to validate their expensive models they have become ever more shrill. Thus we get articles such as these that would make Joseph Goebbels blush.
Argumentum ad Hitlerum, a tactic those who have lost the argument resort to as a last chance to win. I guess we should take it as a sign that the left will soon be looking for new horse to bet on now that Globull Warming is found wanting.
9
When you have a shrinking world it's a totally different ballgame from an era of growth and prosperity. The dark side of morality, religion and politics comes out from the shadows. Preparing for this does not mean heading for the hills with survival gear. It means reforming political and economic systems to be fairer, and expecting and challenging governments to pursue the public interest, not just the interests of the richest one percent.
The author is exactly right to draw the analogy between Hitler and Climate Change denial. People who are blinded by prejudice and ideology, as is the case of the modern day Deniers, are the people who will fall prey to the demagogues and psychopaths, just as the European anti-semites fell under Hitler's sway ninety years ago.
The author is exactly right to draw the analogy between Hitler and Climate Change denial. People who are blinded by prejudice and ideology, as is the case of the modern day Deniers, are the people who will fall prey to the demagogues and psychopaths, just as the European anti-semites fell under Hitler's sway ninety years ago.
9
Well, it's a good thing Warmunists aren't blinded by ideology even despite the facts.
Who are you kidding?
Who are you kidding?
Precisely. See Donald Trump.
“It is always the Jew,” argued Hitler, “who seeks and succeeds in implanting such lethal ways of thinking.”
The demagogues of this world find the answer to every problem in employing lethality instead of rationality. Such individuals never think to anticipate that they may become the victims of their own, immediate actions sooner than suffer the consequences of any impending problem .
The demagogues of this world find the answer to every problem in employing lethality instead of rationality. Such individuals never think to anticipate that they may become the victims of their own, immediate actions sooner than suffer the consequences of any impending problem .
6
Jewish pacifism is the opposite of "lethal".
Interestingly, this article leapfrogged Godwin's Law — "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches" — by forcefully placing the oddly mustachioed Evil One into the center of its argument. I applaud the author for his efficiency.
That said, there are good arguments to be made for equating the evils of Nazism with those of climtae-change denialism. Both twist science to their own selfish, "Hell with you, Jack, I've got mine" ends; both place their own cultural cohort above those whom their aggressive self-preservation would destroy; and both — not to put too fine a point on it — understood/understand that control of popular opinion is vastly more important to narrow, selfish success than the investigation of and distribution of truth and compassion.
In our century, the National Socialist movement is acknowledged by somewhere in the high 90th percentile of humans as not only an error, but an evil one promoted by those who sought benefits through the destruction of others. In the next century, the climate-change denialists of today, those who — either cynically or through fear-blinded foolishness — delay or prevent mitigation may very well be equally reviled.
That said, there are good arguments to be made for equating the evils of Nazism with those of climtae-change denialism. Both twist science to their own selfish, "Hell with you, Jack, I've got mine" ends; both place their own cultural cohort above those whom their aggressive self-preservation would destroy; and both — not to put too fine a point on it — understood/understand that control of popular opinion is vastly more important to narrow, selfish success than the investigation of and distribution of truth and compassion.
In our century, the National Socialist movement is acknowledged by somewhere in the high 90th percentile of humans as not only an error, but an evil one promoted by those who sought benefits through the destruction of others. In the next century, the climate-change denialists of today, those who — either cynically or through fear-blinded foolishness — delay or prevent mitigation may very well be equally reviled.
5
Bonjour de Paris; Very interesting analysis, but so many ideas, so many statements in such a short article, so many dubious claims, it is very dangerous to agglomerate so many dangerous ideas in one pie. Most probably the author is right about Hitlers believe in the need of "Lebensraum" but this idea has been going through the history of man since man existed. Has the author read the true story of the Wilhelm Gustloff a ship sunk at the end of the second WW with 6000 refuges on board and life boats for 2000 persons, those in the life boats killing those who tried to board them? Can we say with truthfulness that if our land is shrinking, for whatever reason, we would not kill those trying to share it? Here around Paris we already have the problems, the farmers are at their wits end on how to protect their crops and equipment from them, hunger thefts or economic thefts? As you are quoting the example of the Great Lakes Region where the tensions have been going on for more than a thousand years, we had another system, farmers would grow crops and soldiers would harvest the bags. Be they Hutu or Tutsi. Writing as an old agronomist, I have no doubts that we can produce enough food for the coming increase of the population, our Guide Borlaug did it, another genius will do it again. But I am less sure than we can guarantee that hope will not fade (Ambabelle)
5
Interesting piece. Global environmental catastrophe may indeed bring out the worst in humanity; but if Hitler's crisis was imagined or based on a misunderstanding, the analogy with the horrors of a "real" crisis seems perhaps a bit off the mark (and the analogy with American climate-change deniers seems to have it "backwards")?
5
Reining in population growth is another key element in assuring that the demand for natural resources and food does not outstrip the supply. But if done too quickly, it can lead to serious economic instability.
7
The inevitable, devastating environmental damages of drought, desertification, torrential storms, flooding, generating uncontrollable mass migrations from rising seas, a wrecked global economy with whole nation states collapsing in an economic and environmental Dark Age, whole ecosystems lost forever by habitat destruction on which civilization relies in the interdependence of all life, the astronomical mass extinction of countless species, starvation from food and water shortage, and man-made environmental disasters are all already happening. Genocide is screaming at the doors of the third world, and their refugees.
226
Our war on the environment is the only war of consequence, and yet we are almost completely ignorant this most important war.
This essay speaks to the reason I believe that anyone concerned about climate change and in particular its effects on human civilization should devote at least as much thought and effort to nuclear disarmament as to green energy and conservation. See level rise will inundate many of the world's population centers, and collapsing fisheries and shifts in patterns of rainfall will stress global food production, perhaps severely, but it is unlikely that climate change per se will destroy civiliaztion. A nuclear exchange triggered by environmental stress, however, certainly could.
Picture this: It's the year 2150. The world's coastal metropolises have been abandoned. The global population is 12 billion, and China's population is only a little short of 2 billion. The Gobi Desert has expanded dramatically, and China's agricultural productivity has plummeted. Famine in China is an imminent possibility. Meanwhile, the Siberian steppe has become increasingly fertile. What happens when some Chinese Hitler of the future argues, not without a certain logic, that the Asian landmass in its entirety should belong to the Han Chinese, that his people will not be allowed to starve while rich Siberian farmland sits by underpopulated and underutilized? Would the overwhelmed Russians accept the annexation of the Russian Far East as an inevitability? Or would they unleash a nuclear holocaust?
Picture this: It's the year 2150. The world's coastal metropolises have been abandoned. The global population is 12 billion, and China's population is only a little short of 2 billion. The Gobi Desert has expanded dramatically, and China's agricultural productivity has plummeted. Famine in China is an imminent possibility. Meanwhile, the Siberian steppe has become increasingly fertile. What happens when some Chinese Hitler of the future argues, not without a certain logic, that the Asian landmass in its entirety should belong to the Han Chinese, that his people will not be allowed to starve while rich Siberian farmland sits by underpopulated and underutilized? Would the overwhelmed Russians accept the annexation of the Russian Far East as an inevitability? Or would they unleash a nuclear holocaust?
3
By now you must wonder why the AGW proponents are totally resistant to reasoning and new information. "The science has been settled" 0bama stated. Make no mistake, there is no need to discuss it.
Transparency be damned.
Wrong ! Jonathan Gruber meant the democrats, not all of us.
AGW is strictly an ideological and money driven hoax, which is elaborately hidden behind the arguable "facts".
The key figures occasionally slip enough to reveal their true motivations.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. Oops, there go the biblical calamity fairy tales.
news.investors.com 11 FEB. 2015.
What ideology would you assign to Christiana's declaration? I agree.
Voila! Mystery resolved. Shame on the Global Warming pseudo-scientific arguments.
We are dealing with closet Marxist radicals who are the true National Security threat.
Their stupor was incomprehensible to me until I took this into account.
Chairman Mao and Chairman 0bama, Karl Marx didn't say anything about "carbon credits" in his Communist Manifesto. Take your favorite ideology elsewhere and leave America to the people who want to cherish it, and embrace improving the capitalist nature of our success, as opposed to both of you.
Transparency be damned.
Wrong ! Jonathan Gruber meant the democrats, not all of us.
AGW is strictly an ideological and money driven hoax, which is elaborately hidden behind the arguable "facts".
The key figures occasionally slip enough to reveal their true motivations.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. Oops, there go the biblical calamity fairy tales.
news.investors.com 11 FEB. 2015.
What ideology would you assign to Christiana's declaration? I agree.
Voila! Mystery resolved. Shame on the Global Warming pseudo-scientific arguments.
We are dealing with closet Marxist radicals who are the true National Security threat.
Their stupor was incomprehensible to me until I took this into account.
Chairman Mao and Chairman 0bama, Karl Marx didn't say anything about "carbon credits" in his Communist Manifesto. Take your favorite ideology elsewhere and leave America to the people who want to cherish it, and embrace improving the capitalist nature of our success, as opposed to both of you.
5
I expect all accessible fossil fuel on this planet to be burned over the next 150 years, and the melting of all the ice in Antarctica will be inevitable.
1
Amazing. Prof. Snyder seems to claim that he knows a "Camelot Secret" ... he knows how to stop droughts, floods and other forms of Extreme Weather... because, as we all know, Extreme Weather never existed prior to the existence electric power plants and SUVs.
Professors today say the darnedest things...
Professors today say the darnedest things...
10
Snyder writes in an unusual, emotive style. Conflation and contradiction abound in this particular screed. I did however, enjoy his interesting idea that Nazi Germany was motivated by unscientific economic ideas rather than euro-centric nationalist politics. I do enjoy historical revisionism!
Also impressed by the way he insinuated current migration, historic weather and genocide events into an imagined climate catastrophe.
As a finale, Snider was also able to suggest that Russia relies on the EU for energy income, rather than the EU being captive to Russian gas exports for its own prosperity. All with a straight face!
(ps Adolf took the Ukraine to get the Caucasus oil fields to power his war machine). For a history professor I give this a C-!
Also impressed by the way he insinuated current migration, historic weather and genocide events into an imagined climate catastrophe.
As a finale, Snider was also able to suggest that Russia relies on the EU for energy income, rather than the EU being captive to Russian gas exports for its own prosperity. All with a straight face!
(ps Adolf took the Ukraine to get the Caucasus oil fields to power his war machine). For a history professor I give this a C-!
16
I give it D-.
But would they commit genocide when they could all just ask for asylum in Sweden?
2
So Hitler thought hunger would outstrip crop improvements, that science had failed. Sound familiar? From Malthus to Hitler to Lenin to Ehrlich to Holdren to ...2015 environmentalism.
Cornucopian Julian Simon proved all these dangerous people wrong. (Ask Erhlich; see The Bet).
How ironic and paradoxical. Hitler whipped up fear of resource scarcity based on what we now know to be bad science (and even worse "science", eugenics). His PR machine, Goebbels, used that fear to political advantage to gain acceptance of an ideology that killed millions. All based on pseudo-science/bad science and a media machine. Sound familiar?
"By 'polluting the atmosphere' with greenhouse gases, the US has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic". OK so you're telling me that if the US never burned another ounce of fossil fuels starting tomorrow that "ecological panic" will be eliminated in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere? Now do you get the irony of even mentioning Goebbels, NY Times?
Because we "deniers" (ultimate irony..) question your science we hold a position that is "intellectually close to Hitler's"? Try because EcoLeftist's hold Totalitarian positions (Nuremburg trials for deniers!) based on flawed science, YOU are the ones intellectually close to Hitler?
This is yet another example of the Totalitarian nature of modern environmentalism, which is no more about saving the planet and humanity than Communism was about "protecting laborers".
Cornucopian Julian Simon proved all these dangerous people wrong. (Ask Erhlich; see The Bet).
How ironic and paradoxical. Hitler whipped up fear of resource scarcity based on what we now know to be bad science (and even worse "science", eugenics). His PR machine, Goebbels, used that fear to political advantage to gain acceptance of an ideology that killed millions. All based on pseudo-science/bad science and a media machine. Sound familiar?
"By 'polluting the atmosphere' with greenhouse gases, the US has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic". OK so you're telling me that if the US never burned another ounce of fossil fuels starting tomorrow that "ecological panic" will be eliminated in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere? Now do you get the irony of even mentioning Goebbels, NY Times?
Because we "deniers" (ultimate irony..) question your science we hold a position that is "intellectually close to Hitler's"? Try because EcoLeftist's hold Totalitarian positions (Nuremburg trials for deniers!) based on flawed science, YOU are the ones intellectually close to Hitler?
This is yet another example of the Totalitarian nature of modern environmentalism, which is no more about saving the planet and humanity than Communism was about "protecting laborers".
5
It could happen again?
It is happening now.
In front of our very eyes.
Millions of humans are on the move due to the current genocides.
We could not intervene easily to stop the Holocaust of the Jews.
We could intervene to stop the current genocides. but won't be easy.
More importantly, we don't want to.
These refugees cannot simply be deported back to their "homes" to be killed.
Meanwhile climate change due to human-caused global warming *is* accelerating.
Right now.
Today.
But not to worry!
Beginning in January 2017 president Donald "I'm worth 10 billion and had three deferments" Trump, or president Hillary "I don't understand how email works but fortunately I married and stuck with Bill" Clinton will lead not just the U.S. back to greatness.
It is happening now.
In front of our very eyes.
Millions of humans are on the move due to the current genocides.
We could not intervene easily to stop the Holocaust of the Jews.
We could intervene to stop the current genocides. but won't be easy.
More importantly, we don't want to.
These refugees cannot simply be deported back to their "homes" to be killed.
Meanwhile climate change due to human-caused global warming *is* accelerating.
Right now.
Today.
But not to worry!
Beginning in January 2017 president Donald "I'm worth 10 billion and had three deferments" Trump, or president Hillary "I don't understand how email works but fortunately I married and stuck with Bill" Clinton will lead not just the U.S. back to greatness.
8
People can't get the idea that the earth is a system, that boarders are artificial political creations, and that what happens in one place will effect what happens in another. Weather doesn't need a passport.
4
Never for a instant believe "human nature" has changed...the seed in human nature that led to the events of the 1930's/40's in Germany is merely lying dormant in the garden of human endeavor; even so, it's receiving a hint of germinating inducing moisture through swelling power-mad fanatical religious conservatism.
15
`I saw an interesting documentary on just this issue, the current socioeconomic models versus science and efficiently shared resources called Zeitgeist. I gave it 5 stars. Mindblowing! What was most interesting is it argued how our systems are set up giving us no other option to fail, for example our healthcare industry needs illness so in a sense, will never promote health as it's main goal because industry is inherently money not resource based. A more efficient and strategic global use of resources not accumulation of wealth will more and more guide the important issues not power and wealth. Unless of course you think having wealth will allow you to survive letting everyone else die. That is what was behind Hitler but also the Kochs, Waltons but also Steve Jobs in some ways. Frankly, Pope Francis is the most forward thinking leader on the planet today.
6
Hmmm. I'm going to bet you're Catholic. Yes, this Pope is the best Pope in a long time, on climate change and other topics. But the person who has spoken out about it AND DONE SOMETHING about it is Obama. That's one reason many people hate him. He deserves to be identified for his stance...just as much as the Pope.
Good piece. Hitler boxed himself in by assuming only his idea was right. As you point out he dismissed science like hybrids and irrigation and so was left with a very unsavory option. Today's science, which could avert the next disaster includes heat mining in the earth's crust and clever approaches to capturing carbon in the oceans, all of which have proven real world examples. However, it is a mistake to think of the anti science culture at face value. It masks a corporatist aversion to writing down investments in a hydrocarbon paradigm and to further investment in a new non-polluting one. Fixing the planet needs to be shown to be profitable before we can move forward.
178
Ah yes, lets allow capitalism dictate and reap the benefits of the social, ecological and environmental devastation of our planet!
Your post seems to assume that Hitler "boxed himself in" because he genuinely believed what he wrote about science. I think it more likely that Hitler's writings have nothing to do with his belief about science, but merely supported his agenda of genocide and world conquest.
Of course, there will be no profits unless the planet is fixed. No planet=no profits.
1
I would disagree that Hitler's war in the East was only to obtain foodstuffs from the Ukraine. He wanted to create an empire that extended to the Ural mountains which in essence would encompass all of European Russia. In addition he lusted for Caspian and Caucasian oil. I also disagree on your depiction of Putin "waxing nostalgic for the 1930's". That comment is not based on any facts.
13
As the article points out, but doesn't make explicit, what's needed is a restoration of public funding of science. Left to "market forces," our best minds are going to tech that creates luxury toys for a few rather than science and tech that benefits us all.
3
The results of privately funded research usually become trade secrets. That is not how science advances.
1
Hitler didn't deny science in general, and indeed required it for his war efforts. What he did deny was "Jewish science," which was science and discoveries by Jews.
Our so-called "conservative" Republicans deny ALL science that is inconvenient to their (and their corporate masters') short-term views.
Our so-called "conservative" Republicans deny ALL science that is inconvenient to their (and their corporate masters') short-term views.
193
Hitler called relativity and quantum mechanics "Jewish physics".
4
Talk about re-writing history to fit your current political opinions!
Professor, the Holocaust was the culmination of 1,500 years of vicious European anti-Semitism, that dehumanized Jews and made them outcasts from European society for the supposed sin of killing Jesus. These views were actively promoted by the Christian church in Europe down through the centuries. Everything else that you ramble on about is just a side-show.
This sort of 'scholarship' once again proves William F. Buckley's line (at least, I think it was him) that he would rather be governed by six names picked at random from the Boston phone book, than by the faculty at Harvard.
Professor, the Holocaust was the culmination of 1,500 years of vicious European anti-Semitism, that dehumanized Jews and made them outcasts from European society for the supposed sin of killing Jesus. These views were actively promoted by the Christian church in Europe down through the centuries. Everything else that you ramble on about is just a side-show.
This sort of 'scholarship' once again proves William F. Buckley's line (at least, I think it was him) that he would rather be governed by six names picked at random from the Boston phone book, than by the faculty at Harvard.
52
Harvard seems to have reverted to its origin as a theological seminary.
2
It’s disturbing that a historian as distinguished as Timothy Snyder would suggest that skeptics of the “progressive” program for combating climate change are “deniers” (a rather ugly word choice) whose “intellectual stance is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”
I am such a skeptic, although I accept the majority scientific view that the earth is getting warmer and that human activity is a large part of the cause. (I accept that majority view because, knowing nothing about the subject, I am hardly in a position to challenge the apparent consensus.)
But I’m a skeptic because I’m not convinced that radical measures, which would surely have a drastic effect on our economy – and therefore on the quality of life of people in the here and now – are warranted, as opposed to efforts to adapt to climate change based, pace Mr. Snyder, on science.
First, it is hardly undisputed that the computer models that predict catastrophe as the result of anticipated warming are reliable. More important, American and European reductions in carbon emissions will be unavailing without similar efforts by China and India, and there is no indication that those countries will subordinate their efforts to raise hundreds of millions of their people out of poverty to Western concerns about global warming.
I fail to see how placing one’s bets on the ability of human ingenuity to adapt to climate change, rather than on radical measure of dubious efficacy, amounts to a Hitler-like rejection of science.
I am such a skeptic, although I accept the majority scientific view that the earth is getting warmer and that human activity is a large part of the cause. (I accept that majority view because, knowing nothing about the subject, I am hardly in a position to challenge the apparent consensus.)
But I’m a skeptic because I’m not convinced that radical measures, which would surely have a drastic effect on our economy – and therefore on the quality of life of people in the here and now – are warranted, as opposed to efforts to adapt to climate change based, pace Mr. Snyder, on science.
First, it is hardly undisputed that the computer models that predict catastrophe as the result of anticipated warming are reliable. More important, American and European reductions in carbon emissions will be unavailing without similar efforts by China and India, and there is no indication that those countries will subordinate their efforts to raise hundreds of millions of their people out of poverty to Western concerns about global warming.
I fail to see how placing one’s bets on the ability of human ingenuity to adapt to climate change, rather than on radical measure of dubious efficacy, amounts to a Hitler-like rejection of science.
11
You're suggesting that the proposed cures are worse than the disease, so to speak. How bad would it have to get before you changed your mind? And at that point, will it make any difference?
3
My sentiments exactly. I have met some brilliant people but no one or group that I would turn over the keys and money to create and execute a master plan. A plan likely more influenced be politics then science.
2
I am utterly disappointed in the lack of fact checking by this "journalist"
1.2 million Tibetans, one-fifth of the country's population, died as a result of China's policies; many more languished in prisons and labor camps; and more than 6000 monasteries, temples and other cultural and historic buildings were destroyed and their contents pillaged.
Lebensraum is alive and kicking in China
1.2 million Tibetans, one-fifth of the country's population, died as a result of China's policies; many more languished in prisons and labor camps; and more than 6000 monasteries, temples and other cultural and historic buildings were destroyed and their contents pillaged.
Lebensraum is alive and kicking in China
8
I remind you that the USA has blood on our hands as well. The largest genocide in the history of the world, the decimation of the people and cultures of the First Nations for starters and continues to the killing and imprisonment of Blacks and other "minorities" to this day. We are quite capable of sinking to the same moral depravity as any other people or Nation.
“War becomes perpetual when used as a rationale for peace,” Norman Solomon. “Peace becomes perpetual when used as a rationale for survival.” Yours truly.
Which side are you on?
“War becomes perpetual when used as a rationale for peace,” Norman Solomon. “Peace becomes perpetual when used as a rationale for survival.” Yours truly.
Which side are you on?
2
It will take strong grass roots activism by the Good People of the world and strong, diplomatic world leaders like President Obama to prevent our esteemed leaders from pushing us into another world war. There are plenty of other solutions to world problems. People in the United States have pea patch community gardens to feed their families and food bank clients, city dwellers are growing small crops in containers on their patios and decks, new urban businesses are forming to grow fresh produce with new technologies, many people have used small back yards to grow their own food. The countries mentioned do not need more land - they need to help their citizens make better use of the land they have. Deforestation and development are two main culprits in drought. California forests are burning because the forest system has been destroyed to build homes and use the water that kept nature's infrastructure healthy. WE average people around the world must elect socially-responsible leaders and DEMAND that they make sustainable land use and sustainability in all areas of life their main goal. The worldwide feeding frenzy for profit at all cost must end.
6
Try to explain that to FOX-GOP sycophants and their (outsider) masters, working against our own interest
1
This is yet another example of how the Left completely ignores history. Just as in the past, the Iran nuke deal not only guarantees war, but this war will be much larger and deadlier.
2
Another parallel, of course, is the “Peace for our time” mindset that produced the Munich Agreement in 1938 and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran in 2015.
2
Publius: Misunderstanding both Munich and Iran. GB was in no position to reverse the invasion of the Sudetenland, nor to prevent the invasion of Poland. Hitler had been preparing for years, with the help of American bankers. When he refused to exit Poland, Chamberlain declared war. That's real history, not Fox garbage.
2
All the GOP candidates deny the science explaining climate change. They & their ilk are laying a basis for slaughter, all the while swearing to us how much they love divinity & the bible, their favorite book.
35
Overwrought fears of the potential local effects of climate change could be as easily used as an excuse for genocide or invasion as the facts of climate change as they evolve.And, even if we were to cease all use of fossil fuels, the climate will continue to change - that's what climate does. Climate change will assuredly change which areas are habitable and where our food comes from.
(yesterday's article pointed out the natural variability of climate. Yeah, the southern ice cap may melt in 20,000 years; it has before! There was a mile of ice over the Northeastern US 20,000 miles ago and the Bering Sea was dry land. Climate change happens! How much we can influence it is a different question.)
The analogy to the "peace and plenty through science", which Hitler felt subversive, is the optimistic view that we can either modify climate beneficially or use our technology to deal with the consequences of inevitable climate change - natural or anthropogenic. Religious-like beliefs in unproven models (which may be right) or religious-like denial of observations (which can also be wrong) are much more likely to be used by zealots than a dispassionate search both for climate drivers and amelioration of what change does occur.
(yesterday's article pointed out the natural variability of climate. Yeah, the southern ice cap may melt in 20,000 years; it has before! There was a mile of ice over the Northeastern US 20,000 miles ago and the Bering Sea was dry land. Climate change happens! How much we can influence it is a different question.)
The analogy to the "peace and plenty through science", which Hitler felt subversive, is the optimistic view that we can either modify climate beneficially or use our technology to deal with the consequences of inevitable climate change - natural or anthropogenic. Religious-like beliefs in unproven models (which may be right) or religious-like denial of observations (which can also be wrong) are much more likely to be used by zealots than a dispassionate search both for climate drivers and amelioration of what change does occur.
106
So you read the Antarctic piece and came up with 20,000 year, which is what that author speculated before he did the review and came up with 1,000 years?
Confirming bias, perhaps ...
Confirming bias, perhaps ...
6
"And, even if we were to cease all use of fossil fuels, the climate will continue to change - that's what climate does."
Please, everyone, stop using this foolish argument.... It's the pace of the change that matters, making adaptation so much more difficult... and thus making the impact potentially so much more devastating...
Please, everyone, stop using this foolish argument.... It's the pace of the change that matters, making adaptation so much more difficult... and thus making the impact potentially so much more devastating...
9
the difference between 20,000 years ago and today is that we have the foreknowledge and means to do something about it, rather than behave as if there is no future for our species, and if we just take it all, we'll win at the end of the game. talk about "religious-like beliefs!" right-wingers and other inherent deniers of human interconnectedness hold to this belief that to develop alternative sources of energy, to adjust our lifestyle in recognition of finite resources, is to end life as we know it; it's armaggedon. it's called change; evolution; dare i say, "progress?" oops, a 1,000 right-wing heads just exploded with visions of stalin marching on their local elementary school!
7
Perhaps famine is itself genocide.
I've read about the man-made famine in the fertile Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1932 and 1933 that killed an estimated 2.5–7.5 million Ukrainians, before Hitler's plans for the territory.
Large agricultural society seems to be a diseased state leading to nationalism, overpopulation & the advent of territorial warfare.
Thankfully we live in the age of the genome when ethnic pseudosciences have been categorically disproved.
We who live where it still rains can go out to the back yard & plant beans & support our local organic farmers. Bring agriculture home where it belongs, not in mega crops of Monsanto seeds.
I've read about the man-made famine in the fertile Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1932 and 1933 that killed an estimated 2.5–7.5 million Ukrainians, before Hitler's plans for the territory.
Large agricultural society seems to be a diseased state leading to nationalism, overpopulation & the advent of territorial warfare.
Thankfully we live in the age of the genome when ethnic pseudosciences have been categorically disproved.
We who live where it still rains can go out to the back yard & plant beans & support our local organic farmers. Bring agriculture home where it belongs, not in mega crops of Monsanto seeds.
6
Literature sometimes anticipates the future.
Welcome to Generation "Hunger Games."
Welcome to Generation "Hunger Games."
2
Unfortunately, denial of science is merely one consequence of the growing gap between rich and poor. The Extreme Capitalist ethos is at the heart of the world's problems, from U.S. support of oil rich dictatorships and invasion of non-compliant nations, to ISIS's exploitation of society's disenfranchised with promises of community and empowerment.
The problem goes far beyond the Holocaust. We are the victims of our own horrific human nature, and to deny that is to propagate the greatest denial of all.
The problem goes far beyond the Holocaust. We are the victims of our own horrific human nature, and to deny that is to propagate the greatest denial of all.
72
Lebensraum is just another word for imperialism. Take our own country. Terms like "The Winning of the West," and "Empire of Liberty" were self-deluding euphemisms for a policy of attaining lebensraum. American behavior in the 19th century West was strikingly similar to German policy in Poland and Russia in the 1940s. We expressed sympathy for the Poles, Russians, and Jews who were Hitler's victims partly because they lived on land we didn't covet. No such sympathy was extended to the Native Americans, who instead suffered genocide at our hands.
Hitler's belief in Malthus and his inability to foresee the Green Revolution partly explains his behavior. But the Jews were murdered not because they took up space (most Jews in Poland and Ukraine lived in cities, and not on the land Hitler wanted for colonization), but because Hitler was a ferocious anti-Semite who believed in the notion of Aryan supremacy. It was race hatred that brought on the Holocaust, and not the doctrine of lebensraum.
In any case, an ever-expanding population will eventually outstrip even the Earth's great bounty. Malthus has not been proved wrong for all time. "Resource wars" are probably coming, and ethnic cleansing and genocide may very well accompany them. The author is probably right about that. On the other hand, he overlooks entirely the principal goal of Chinese lebensraum. Australia -- thinly populated, resource rich -- is very much in China's sights. When China builds a blue water navy, look out.
Hitler's belief in Malthus and his inability to foresee the Green Revolution partly explains his behavior. But the Jews were murdered not because they took up space (most Jews in Poland and Ukraine lived in cities, and not on the land Hitler wanted for colonization), but because Hitler was a ferocious anti-Semite who believed in the notion of Aryan supremacy. It was race hatred that brought on the Holocaust, and not the doctrine of lebensraum.
In any case, an ever-expanding population will eventually outstrip even the Earth's great bounty. Malthus has not been proved wrong for all time. "Resource wars" are probably coming, and ethnic cleansing and genocide may very well accompany them. The author is probably right about that. On the other hand, he overlooks entirely the principal goal of Chinese lebensraum. Australia -- thinly populated, resource rich -- is very much in China's sights. When China builds a blue water navy, look out.
12
"Lebensraum" translates to American English as "manifest destiny".
3
It's frightening that a major political party in one of the world's most powerful nations has elected not to believe in science, and in fact spreads lies and propaganda, brandishes the cross and demonizes poor people, immigrants, especially Mexicans, and anybody who is "other."
We can't hope to build a better future on lies, bigotry, superstition and fear. And we can't sustain the world we have if we can't even cope with economic injustice here in the US.
We don't have to see pictures of parched land in Africa to see ruin and despair. Our own forests are burning.
Our own politicians want to exploit our priceless and irreplaceable and often, sacred public lands - for what? To line their already bulging pockets.
We can't hope to build a better future on lies, bigotry, superstition and fear. And we can't sustain the world we have if we can't even cope with economic injustice here in the US.
We don't have to see pictures of parched land in Africa to see ruin and despair. Our own forests are burning.
Our own politicians want to exploit our priceless and irreplaceable and often, sacred public lands - for what? To line their already bulging pockets.
347
True, all true. But a little early perhaps to compare American climate deniers to nazis.
6
I don't think he did. He was making situational comparisons, and I think he started with China and Russia. He was talking about habits of thought that we are seeing growing: looking for somebody to blame to keep one's own.
As food for thought, this kind of observation is useful; in fact currently we have way too much insistence that we can "make American great again" without doing the hard work of actually improviing it. I use Trump's slogan, but despite my disgust at the man, I don't think he's a Hitler. He's too vague about what he will actually do, being trained to produce hot air and sell things, not to solve problems.
As food for thought, this kind of observation is useful; in fact currently we have way too much insistence that we can "make American great again" without doing the hard work of actually improviing it. I use Trump's slogan, but despite my disgust at the man, I don't think he's a Hitler. He's too vague about what he will actually do, being trained to produce hot air and sell things, not to solve problems.
2
We have to grow from two to ten times as much plant food than we would otherwise have to because we grow food to feed to animals, instead of to humans. Growing food for humans instead would be vastly more efficient. Our animal torture factories are food factories IN REVERSE. We turn ten pounds of protein and calories into one pound of protein and calories in the factory torture farms.
Further, animal agriculture is one of the top causes of climate change. Some scientists say it is the top cause, as the NY Times has reported.
The answer is obvious. Shut down the torture factories. Eat plants. It's that simple.
Further, animal agriculture is one of the top causes of climate change. Some scientists say it is the top cause, as the NY Times has reported.
The answer is obvious. Shut down the torture factories. Eat plants. It's that simple.
16
It's really not that simple as evidenced by E. O. Wilson in his 1998 Consilience:The Unity Of Knowledge.
"If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would supply about 10 billion people. If humans utilized as food all the energy captured by plant photosynthesis, some 40 trillion watts, earth could support about 16 billion people. From such a fragile worlds, almost all other life forms would have to be excluded...To summarize the future of resources and climate, the wall toward which humanity is evidently rushing is a shortage not of minerals and energy, but of food and water."
Wilson's estimates were based on 20th Century statistics, and in the 20 odd years that have passed fresh waters tables have dramatically decreased in places like NV, CA, TX, the middle east and the what once was the Aral Sea.
There are too many of us to sustain global stability. People behave poorly when they're hungry, and they get down right ugly when they are starving. Unfortunately the proliferation of arms for profits has made the ugly extremely violent.
"If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would supply about 10 billion people. If humans utilized as food all the energy captured by plant photosynthesis, some 40 trillion watts, earth could support about 16 billion people. From such a fragile worlds, almost all other life forms would have to be excluded...To summarize the future of resources and climate, the wall toward which humanity is evidently rushing is a shortage not of minerals and energy, but of food and water."
Wilson's estimates were based on 20th Century statistics, and in the 20 odd years that have passed fresh waters tables have dramatically decreased in places like NV, CA, TX, the middle east and the what once was the Aral Sea.
There are too many of us to sustain global stability. People behave poorly when they're hungry, and they get down right ugly when they are starving. Unfortunately the proliferation of arms for profits has made the ugly extremely violent.
4
It is not that difficult to see the signs of history repeating itself, only the circumstances of it is changed. Those who accept the science accept it only if it conveniences them. Yet there are still those that still do not accept the science after all the written proof is given, prime example are those that think immunization is bad.
But just like those that reject medical science, so are those that reject the science on Earth sciences that would include the climate, yet these same people look to the sky with their weather forecasters and see if it will actually rain tomorrow!
But really, it is not the science that these contrarians deny about climate change for it is always happening. It is the measures in curbing these greenhouse gases that they deny at the cost of their bankrolls.
That the acquisition of material wealth has been the driving force of humanity. Unfortunately, it will also be it's demise!
But just like those that reject medical science, so are those that reject the science on Earth sciences that would include the climate, yet these same people look to the sky with their weather forecasters and see if it will actually rain tomorrow!
But really, it is not the science that these contrarians deny about climate change for it is always happening. It is the measures in curbing these greenhouse gases that they deny at the cost of their bankrolls.
That the acquisition of material wealth has been the driving force of humanity. Unfortunately, it will also be it's demise!
7
A chilling description of an all too plausible future in which countries battle each other for a larger share of a shrinking resource 'pie.' Professor Snyder is a fine historian, with expert knowledge of the Nazi holocaust in Eastern Europe. In this essay, he makes a compelling argument that rejection of the findings of climate science can play a key role in causing the dystopia he describes.
But the physical sciences themselves have played a more ambiguous role in creating our current dilemma than he acknowledges. The pollution which is the key to destructive climate change is a product of the advanced technologies scientists have developed in the service of capitalist-driven economic progress. Thus, in effect, one group of scientists measures the damage inflicted by a second contingent, both using the scientific method and relying on empirical evidence to accomplish their objectives.
Science is an invaluable tool, but only if its practitioners pursue the right goals. Those researchers who are developing alternative technologies that can curb the pollution which threatens to destroy our civilization have the task of undoing the damage caused by earlier generations of researchers.
So the issue is not whether we accept or reject science. The climate-change deniers are not opposed to science as such. They prefer the science that has created our high standard of living, and they fear that climate science will destroy that comfortable life.
But the physical sciences themselves have played a more ambiguous role in creating our current dilemma than he acknowledges. The pollution which is the key to destructive climate change is a product of the advanced technologies scientists have developed in the service of capitalist-driven economic progress. Thus, in effect, one group of scientists measures the damage inflicted by a second contingent, both using the scientific method and relying on empirical evidence to accomplish their objectives.
Science is an invaluable tool, but only if its practitioners pursue the right goals. Those researchers who are developing alternative technologies that can curb the pollution which threatens to destroy our civilization have the task of undoing the damage caused by earlier generations of researchers.
So the issue is not whether we accept or reject science. The climate-change deniers are not opposed to science as such. They prefer the science that has created our high standard of living, and they fear that climate science will destroy that comfortable life.
7
“After nuclear negotiations, the Zionist regime said that they will not be worried about Iran in the next 25 years,” Ayatollah Khamenei wrote. “I am telling you, first, you will not be around in 25 years’ time, and God willing, there will be no Zionist regime in 25 years. Second, during this period, the spirit of fighting, heroism and jihad will keep you worried every moment.”
Next Holocaust < 25 years.
Next Holocaust < 25 years.
18
Uh, no. Thermonukes over Teheran will solve that braggadocio.
1
Gil Scott-Heron, the first hip hop singer, penned "The Revolution Will Not be Televised" back in 1970.
Back in the 1990s a "world war occurred in southern Africa centering around the Congo; millions died, far more than the number of victims in Rwanda's horrible genocide. Neither was televised. Most Americans don't even know about the first "holocaust", but Rwanda's minor second "holocaust" did make it into movie theaters.
The current "holocaust" hasn't reached "The Holocaust" level get. But it may.
And the current "holocaust" has been televised on European stations like France 24 and Deutsche Welle (available free via my PBS provider) for years.
Back in the 1990s a "world war occurred in southern Africa centering around the Congo; millions died, far more than the number of victims in Rwanda's horrible genocide. Neither was televised. Most Americans don't even know about the first "holocaust", but Rwanda's minor second "holocaust" did make it into movie theaters.
The current "holocaust" hasn't reached "The Holocaust" level get. But it may.
And the current "holocaust" has been televised on European stations like France 24 and Deutsche Welle (available free via my PBS provider) for years.
And God is about all that the Ayatollah has. Netanyahu has sufficient nuclear warheads to destroy the entire planet. And if that's not enough , Israel is also possessed of a few hydrogen bombs.
If God intends to accommodate the Ayatollah , let God give it a go. The smart money is on Israel's nuclear arsenal.
In terms of relative fire power, the Ayatollah has no chance . All that Netanyahu requires is the approbation of the United States and it is the Iranians who will be fed to the ovens in very short order indeed.
Israel is the only meaningful opponent of the agreed upon negotiations. What possible benefit might derive to the United States by opposing an agreement that has been endorsed by virtually all other world powers ?
The resistance to diplomacy by some commentary is just not logical , but the resistance to this agreement by a united republican party is mind blowing.
Having invaded Iraq based upon deceptive and untrue statements from the Bush administration , this nation has fruitlessly struggled in the Middle East for the past 14 years at a cost of countless lives , thousands of our military , and has racked up a debt to the Chinese of many trillions of dollars. There is not a thing to show for any of it.
Regardless, the GOP has thrown its allegiance to an Israeli warlord that thirsts for the blood of the Iranians and the oppression of the Palestinians in direct opposition to American interests.
Since when is the GOP employed by the Knesset ?
If God intends to accommodate the Ayatollah , let God give it a go. The smart money is on Israel's nuclear arsenal.
In terms of relative fire power, the Ayatollah has no chance . All that Netanyahu requires is the approbation of the United States and it is the Iranians who will be fed to the ovens in very short order indeed.
Israel is the only meaningful opponent of the agreed upon negotiations. What possible benefit might derive to the United States by opposing an agreement that has been endorsed by virtually all other world powers ?
The resistance to diplomacy by some commentary is just not logical , but the resistance to this agreement by a united republican party is mind blowing.
Having invaded Iraq based upon deceptive and untrue statements from the Bush administration , this nation has fruitlessly struggled in the Middle East for the past 14 years at a cost of countless lives , thousands of our military , and has racked up a debt to the Chinese of many trillions of dollars. There is not a thing to show for any of it.
Regardless, the GOP has thrown its allegiance to an Israeli warlord that thirsts for the blood of the Iranians and the oppression of the Palestinians in direct opposition to American interests.
Since when is the GOP employed by the Knesset ?
2
Humankind has been battling for resources from the day Ur was settled. Growing wheat, led to granaries and creating armies to defend the, And, creating armies to conquer other city states and nations. Enslaving those to build a kingdom. And genocide was a constant companion. The birth of royalty, enslavement and fears implanted in the people by vengeful gods. Thus, this has been part of organized human society for 10,000 years; conquer or be conquered; fear your enemy and royalty/politicians have the ultimate control and make the decisions to pillage.
NAZI Germany was also a product of this, but the Germans took genocide to a new, scientific, organized level. What they started, with WWII, nearly wiped out all the Jews and killed nearly 100 million people.
Today, with overpopulation, including here in the US, already nations are lining up to secure resources for their hungry masses. Even if that means genocide, down the road to do it. Global warming is real, as land becomes more fallow it will be too late.
Many speculated the dearth of fossil fuels would cause the next world war. That still may happen. But, the need to feed billions of people will bring about calamities that will make WWII pale in comparison. With eyes looking to Africa, as a solution, it does not bode well for its people, or the fauna that not occupies its lands.
NAZI Germany was also a product of this, but the Germans took genocide to a new, scientific, organized level. What they started, with WWII, nearly wiped out all the Jews and killed nearly 100 million people.
Today, with overpopulation, including here in the US, already nations are lining up to secure resources for their hungry masses. Even if that means genocide, down the road to do it. Global warming is real, as land becomes more fallow it will be too late.
Many speculated the dearth of fossil fuels would cause the next world war. That still may happen. But, the need to feed billions of people will bring about calamities that will make WWII pale in comparison. With eyes looking to Africa, as a solution, it does not bode well for its people, or the fauna that not occupies its lands.
79
Not only this, but American fundamentalist "christians" have sold some African leaders on legalized murder for LGBTQ people in their countries. This is the very opposite of Jesus's teachings.
2
It is amazing that the NYT did not make this one of their picks.
2
Well, will there be a war over climate debt? currently estimated at half-a-trillion dollars?
http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/releases/2015/09/08/should-countries...
"All countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others. Those that have contributed more than their fair share have accumulated a climate debt, owed to countries that have contributed less to historical warming.
This is the implication of a new study published in Nature Climate Change, in which Concordia University researcher Damon Matthews shows how national carbon and climate debts could be used to decide who should pay for the global costs of climate mitigation and damages.
The countries that have accumulated the largest carbon debts on account of higher than average per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.
The U.S. alone carries 40 per cent of the cumulative world debt, while Canada carries about four per cent. On the other side, the carbon creditors — those whose share of CO2 emissions has been smaller than their share of world population — are India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil and China, with India holding 30 per cent of the total world credit. "
http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/releases/2015/09/08/should-countries...
"All countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others. Those that have contributed more than their fair share have accumulated a climate debt, owed to countries that have contributed less to historical warming.
This is the implication of a new study published in Nature Climate Change, in which Concordia University researcher Damon Matthews shows how national carbon and climate debts could be used to decide who should pay for the global costs of climate mitigation and damages.
The countries that have accumulated the largest carbon debts on account of higher than average per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.
The U.S. alone carries 40 per cent of the cumulative world debt, while Canada carries about four per cent. On the other side, the carbon creditors — those whose share of CO2 emissions has been smaller than their share of world population — are India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil and China, with India holding 30 per cent of the total world credit. "
21
That kind of argument while rational can also lead to support for the very wars the author discusses. It will not be accepted by those countries. It does have some logical failures also. For example Brazil has contributed to global warming as has other countries by clear cutting forest similarly Indonesia and despite the majority of benefits going to the heavy energy user countries most of humanity has benefited from their advances and in fact the higher populations in these areas is to some degree a result of technology and knowledge gained from industrial countries.
I don't know that per-capita is the best measure of carbon debt. When talking about over all impact we perhaps need to look more toward per-airspace as a measure.
1
A narrative that leaves out economic factors like the Great Depression and the colonial order existent up to 1945 is a bit suspect of determinism (ecological in this case), although nobody can deny the role played by the ideological pivot of the Lebensraum and the predominant antisemitism (not only in Germany) of the Nazi imaginary.
Today climate change is an effect of a growth model that is not able to see beyond profit and market expansion (which are tied to colonialism and conquest) -issues that that you give a free pass. Indeed China had better ecological practices before embarked on the growth practices started 5 centuries earlier in the West.
As far as I see the nationalism associated with right wing parties and the wars that created much displacement started within the last decade (Iran, Syria, Afgahanistan, etc) and coincide with the Great Recession and ongoing stagnation. It may be worth considering that too.
Today climate change is an effect of a growth model that is not able to see beyond profit and market expansion (which are tied to colonialism and conquest) -issues that that you give a free pass. Indeed China had better ecological practices before embarked on the growth practices started 5 centuries earlier in the West.
As far as I see the nationalism associated with right wing parties and the wars that created much displacement started within the last decade (Iran, Syria, Afgahanistan, etc) and coincide with the Great Recession and ongoing stagnation. It may be worth considering that too.
95
Enri Enri nationalism is left winged not right winged as alot of liberals like to portray it as
1
Thanks for this article. I was starting to grow concerned that this might be a day I rolled out of bed and looked at the world through optimistic eyes.
218
SD: We can't solve problems if we deny that they exist. This is a tough one for lefties who are editors at heart. How to delineate problems without adding to gloom?
1
War and genocide are almost always traceable to quarrels over resources. Scientific methods and research can help us use resources more efficiently but even that has a cost. http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Nature_Rebounds.pdf
56
As you try to refute, that the Holocaust was based on science or an elaborated cultural justification, you run into much "erklärungsnot" (failing to offer an explanation). Because the real disturbing thing about the Holocaust is, that there are actually justifications at all levels. And "Lebensraum" as an ecological/economical issue is even a very strong justification.
Even today we 'advanced' societies are looking for a cheap vindication, like WMD, to ensure us the access to resources, like oil.
But also on a biological aspects. Supremacy based on race is a very modern justification, and back than, the decoding of the human genom was unknown and couldn't prove that the spread within a hablotype is to diverse to mark a certain race. And just look at the US and europe today, this white supremacy conception is firmly established in our society.
Also on the level of culture. The idea of the 'Ubermensch' is a very modern idea of a society, which put's aside all moral antics and quarrels for one reason only - supremacy.
The problem is, that the Holocaust is much more in us than we want to admit. Germans back than just had this utter determination to follow this logic through. Which by the way is not so much different from our determination today to stop another genocide.
Even today we 'advanced' societies are looking for a cheap vindication, like WMD, to ensure us the access to resources, like oil.
But also on a biological aspects. Supremacy based on race is a very modern justification, and back than, the decoding of the human genom was unknown and couldn't prove that the spread within a hablotype is to diverse to mark a certain race. And just look at the US and europe today, this white supremacy conception is firmly established in our society.
Also on the level of culture. The idea of the 'Ubermensch' is a very modern idea of a society, which put's aside all moral antics and quarrels for one reason only - supremacy.
The problem is, that the Holocaust is much more in us than we want to admit. Germans back than just had this utter determination to follow this logic through. Which by the way is not so much different from our determination today to stop another genocide.
98
The author said that the Holocaust was based not only on hate but on science denying, not science. As I take his points, denying science could damage our civilization. The struggle for resources was and is real. It always is, but it can also give cover and justification to haters looking to scapegoat "other" groups in times of scarcity. I see some in the U.S. scapegoating poor, work-seeking Mexicans, falsely blaming them for all of our ills. Europe points at refugees. How does one achieve a more just and tolerant world? Truth-telling is a start.
20
Where to start? There is nothing new about people invading other countries and killing all the men, women and children under the justification of being a superior race. What set Germany apart was the scale which is a global phenomenon not specific to German culture. Mao and Stalin did the same thing in spades. The books of Moses are full of stories of God ordering the Jews to kill women and children, even the unborn. And don't forget the "Manifest Destiny". This article is a perfect example of the dangers of swallowing the global warming propaganda hook, line and sinker, and is designed to get some desired political action. It tacitly implies that we should take some kind of decisive action, up to and including killing the perpetrators (who ever we decide that is) if needed, to prevent a genocide. Never mind that you would probably kill a lot of innocents in the process. Prepare yourselves for a lot more of this kind of pure political demagoguery as the stresses of diminishing resources, growing population and a failing economy (the real problems) grow.
1
Interesting, isn't it, how the selected 'hate-objects- segued from Jews, in Hitler's time, to 'Islamists', today. The 'formula' is the same, but the parameters have changed a bit. The 'supremacy'-bit was (and is) just a convenient 'cover-story'
2
This article makes an excellent pair with the coverage on Antarctic melt, though I'd tend to think the latter is a mite optimistic about the near timeframe while scientifically rigorous on the millenial timescale for total melt if we don't get a grip.
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/science/climate-study-predicts-huge-sea-level...
In my view it is about acknowledging responsibility for the future and for all of humanity, such as it is. We have a slowing developing emergency, a possibility to use our skills and intelligence and humanity to grow into taking care of things. Or we can go on distracting ourselves with ever more marketing and consumption and all go together. No magic wand is going to make all tidy. But the means are ready to hand, the warnings clear, and decades old, and the time is now.
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/science/climate-study-predicts-huge-sea-level...
In my view it is about acknowledging responsibility for the future and for all of humanity, such as it is. We have a slowing developing emergency, a possibility to use our skills and intelligence and humanity to grow into taking care of things. Or we can go on distracting ourselves with ever more marketing and consumption and all go together. No magic wand is going to make all tidy. But the means are ready to hand, the warnings clear, and decades old, and the time is now.
292
Good grief!
"polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.....ecological panic". By far the greatest greenhouse gas is water vapour. Either remaining in gaseous form or when precipitated out it is essential for plant life. Another greenhouse gas is suffering an undeserved bad rap. CO2 is also essential for plant growth. The more the better. Historically, 400 PPM is low. Commercial greenhouse operators add CO2 to enhance growth.
Did not know that Hitler was a Malthusian--like Ehrlich and Gore.
"polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.....ecological panic". By far the greatest greenhouse gas is water vapour. Either remaining in gaseous form or when precipitated out it is essential for plant life. Another greenhouse gas is suffering an undeserved bad rap. CO2 is also essential for plant growth. The more the better. Historically, 400 PPM is low. Commercial greenhouse operators add CO2 to enhance growth.
Did not know that Hitler was a Malthusian--like Ehrlich and Gore.
2
There is one magic wand we can all use, if we choose to: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. The big problems, climate change, jihad, territorial wars in Africa, China's instability, all come down to overpopulation and its secondary effects. Every child that remains unborn increases exponentially through its unborn offspring; the unborn population can grow even faster than the population of actual children.
We must either reduce our numbers voluntarily or it will be done for us, globally.
We must either reduce our numbers voluntarily or it will be done for us, globally.
12
Good grief indeed. I suggest a basic education on greenhouse gases. Here's one answer: "water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere (a few days) before it is incorporated into weather events and falls to Earth, so it cannot build up in the atmosphere in the same way as carbon dioxide does." I was going to go straight to Wikipedia (not perfect, but useful and largely accurate) but instead suggest you do a search:
"heat trapping greenhouse gases"
which produced more accessible information than when last I looked. Here's an excellent overview with lots of good illustration and summary information:
https://www.climatecommunication.org/climate/heat-trapping-gases/
We are accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere which are increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting our planetary circulation (climate change). No about of Gore et al. bashing will change the facts, though you all may feel better for your free form insults.
"heat trapping greenhouse gases"
which produced more accessible information than when last I looked. Here's an excellent overview with lots of good illustration and summary information:
https://www.climatecommunication.org/climate/heat-trapping-gases/
We are accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere which are increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting our planetary circulation (climate change). No about of Gore et al. bashing will change the facts, though you all may feel better for your free form insults.
11
You know warm climates allow for more crops and herd over a larger part of the earth. The poles have melted before, and submarines surfaced at the North Pole in the 60's. Miami was fine.
AGW is not going to kill us, but the pollution, need for food and safe water for 9 Billion plus people will cause a major purging of humans on earth. The oceans may be destroyed by chemical pollution caused by human activity and pollution. A mutant virus may wipe out 90% of the earth's population, but AGW Climate Change can't be controlled by expecting an organized solution by billions greedy humans who hunger for more energy, more air conditioning, more heat in the winter, more food, more children and more stuff, all causing pollution that may kill us.
Our planet has an occupancy limit, and we may be close to exceeding it, given our greed for more pollution causing possessions. You can count on population control to be part of the solution, what causes it will be a continuous game of Russian roulette with a wide variety of unsolvable population-driven problems.