Monday, August 22, 2011

Chacun à son goût

I am in the mood for a little ad hominem attack.   I was spending some time over at ZeroHedge and got to reading

I made the mistake of going over and reading some douchebag whining about how we are going to extinct ourselves in the next twenty years.  What a fucking retard.

Why is he so certain that the human race is going to become extinct?   Granted, we are going to go through a long overdue trimming, but extinct?  Give me a break.  This comes back to the hubris and arrogance of mankind.

Paul Ehrlich and his intellectual grandfather Thomas Malthus have gone over this in detail.  Jared Diamond has detailed the situation nicely and I really cannot say enough about the well thought out analysis of Professor Tainter.

So, I really do see that we will be going through a massive dislocation in the not to distant future.   A couple of the horsemen that have been on vacation lately will probably be showing up.  The patterns of magnetic field orientation that currently defines most of the wealth in the world will have a drastically lower value (lets consider the number zero).

So we will be reverting to mean.  It is going to leave a mark.  But extinction?  Really?

No, the folks who go around and mouth this kind of tripe are really missing the boat.  They are mistaking their personal extinction/death (very probable) with the death of the species (very improbable).  But, that is the nature of folks.  But, when you read how the article in Zerohedge is structured, you start realizing that the person doing the writing equates his loss of perceived wealth and status as being equivalent to the end of the world.


Craig Cavanaugh said...

To the dollar worshiper, it is the end of the world. To me, the collapse will be the beginning. As soon as dimwits like that have perished in their despair and gotten out of the way, the rest of us can finally get on with living.

Anonymous said...

The drama of species extinction, as opposed to merely personal extinction has a lot of appeal for reasons not entirely clear. The discussion you linked and the 50+ comments all carried the implicit bias in favor of human attrition happening more-or-less scattered along the next century. That it somehow matters whether the entire human population of the planet should perish one-by-one, or all in a more abbreviated calendar period.

That unanimity suggests that whatever these people believe about issues contributing to human deaths, there's something humans do that needs doing and it needs doing by humans or something of value will be lost to the universe.

It would be a lot more interesting to know what they think that is, or might be, than knowing their opinions about the composite lifespans of the human species.

The comments didn't hint they all own shares in life insurance companies and consider actuarials and payouts important, but it's difficult to arrive at another explanation.