Skip to comments.The Hedonistic Left and Global Warming
Posted on 02/19/2007 5:53:51 PM PST by neverdem
All the fretting over "the future" from global warming alarmists is a little hard to take, given that they normally support live-for-today hedonism. Does British billionaire Richard Branson and other members of the elite, who are presiding over an historic demographic implosion in Europe, really toss and turn at night worrying about the future quality of life for "the children"? Can a decadent elite which ushered in decades of self-indulgent, drugs-and-promiscuity-laden lifestyles credibly warn of "death and destruction," civilizational collapse and the need for abstemiousness?
Nothing in their customary moral philosophy would suggest seriousness about civilization's future or place any emphasis on behaving responsibly. Note also that the elitists who make the most noise about the "purity" of nature never apply that concern to human nature: they have made careers out of corrupting it. The self-appointed prophets of an environmental apocalypse from Hollywood and New York are the forces most responsible for engineering a secularist culture which is remarkable in the history of all cultures for its moral obliviousness and its utter indifference to the future, much less the moral welfare of children.
The polluted culture they have spread throughout the world poses a much greater threat to children's lives than global warming ever could. All the moral energies they refuse to spend on crises in front of their noses they are busy transferring to a fictitious future one, which is based not upon ironclad science but upon a style of grand ideological conjecture their egos find satisfying.
Why in the world should ordinary people believe the Al Gores when they pronounce on future moral threats if they can't even identify present ones? If anything, keeping children from entering the world is more in line with their relativistic philosophy than ensuring they are born into a clean one. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe has now famously compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers, bringing to bear a stern moral certainty about protecting the earth she can't find in her hear for the protection of unborn children. What dogmatic rigor from a columnist who usually tells her readers that moral issues are "complicated" and "nuanced" and pooh-poohs clear and present moral threats to children, such as the disintegration of the traditional family, as alarmist hyperbole. According to her moral calculus, carbon emissions do more damage to the lives of children than abortion or same-sex marriage and adoption.
The moral relativists of the last few decades can only manage to turn absolutist on questions unrelated to morality, particularly those touching upon environmental fads. Their faith in global warming is so strong they find themselves demanding the sorts of duties and sacrifices they discount in any other area of life. The pushy and judgmental piety of relativists on environmental issues is bottomless, amounting to a quasi-pantheism. It appears that what pop scientist Carl Sagan once said is coming to pass: "A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge."
Except environmentalism is more like feel-good mythology than religion. The same secularists and relativists who consider it ridiculous to offer sacrifices to God or regulate their conduct in accordance with the Ten Commandments are busy devising an elaborate system of irrational blandishments to serve their nature mythology. They spell out the details of this new regimen of discipline and abstinence with the confident knowledge they'll never have to carry it out. Like Marxism, this mythology is supposed to sustain civilization not through individual virtue but through regulation and centralized planning. An elite whose goodness is measured not by their own moral behavior but by the brilliance of their statist schemes will apparently save the earth.
In the meantime, the propagandists for global warming, while speaking darkly of the future and the need for greater and greater "responsibility," will continue to deepen a hedonistic culture of irresponsibility in the here and now -- a culture under which children are the first to suffer, and which, far from caring about the future, considers it the height of enlightenment to prevent children from seeing it.
|Mr. Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report.|
Click graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Wow...he kicks butt. I never thought of it in that way.
Brilliant analysis... absolutely brilliant!
Excellent article. I had not thought of it before, but global warming plays right into the world-view of those who believe we are overpopulating. Of course, the ones primarily responsible for overpopulation aren't going to be deterred. In contrast, white people increasingly seem to want to wish themselves out of existence.
Liberals believe that somebody else should pay taxes to support their ideological agendas.
And they also believe that somebody else should die, preferably in some poor, third-world nation, to support the personal lifestyles to which they are accustomed.
Many...but not all. Very large numbers of lefties work very hard at productive and difficult jobs, raise decent families, and participate with intelligence and understanding in communal life.
Meanwhile, many on the Right refuse to recognize that traditional culture sucks, that it's brought us intolerance and war and death for centuries...and dysfuncional individuals and families galore (as well as pederast priests and other sickos).
"Brilliant analysis...absolutely brilliant!" Did you forget to add /s?? I'm sure you are being sarcastic. The article does nothing to enlighten us as to pro/con of GW debate, it merely gives a Catholic writer a chance to vent at abortion supporters. One could use tactics like these to slam most anybody for any position they may have that is opposite of writers.
Didn't you read the title? (Or the article for that matter.)
The author was comparing the Hedonistic Left with their new religion; Global Warming & Environmentalism.
The Author hit a grand slam out of the park! He nailed it right on the money.
Either that, or take a reading comprehension course, it would surely help.
He's saying what Dylan said in "You Gotta Serve Somebody".
The left has replaced one religion with another. It's always been this way, like when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and saw the idol worship etc. etc.
Excellent article and that question alone should be the only response to anything the Lefties say. They have discredited themselves so many times!
and I notice the Token Lefty on this thread has already begun the "Lefties=Good, Righties=Bad" spiel. Do you really think FReepers are interested in hearing that set up again? Its just more of the same passive-aggressive twaddle that Lefties have always used because they can't come up with a better refutation. Sheesh! Come back when you have something NEW to say.
Oh, I don't think so. The author paints with too broad a brush and allows his bias to blind him to faults in his own ideology. Beams and motes, you know.
Specifically, the debate over global warming has a real scientific basis - regardless of the political clap-trap surrounding it - as real as the debate surrounding quantum mechanics (with no Einstein arguing the negative).
Also, I've been a token Lefty on this forum for a long time...which means I serve some useful purpose or am simply a useful idiot, a clown. Take your choice.
You are an honest liberal, and some of us appreciate that. Even if we turn around and seek to whump your butt around as a result of such. :^)
By the way, I got kicked off TPM cafe for suggesting to M J Rosenberg that he was willing to wear a yellow star in his search for peace at any price. :) It was worth it...but I do miss the confrontation. You ought to visit the site. It's quite full of pretentious, self-important masturbators.
Looks like the Hedonistic Left are practicing what Communist dictators have perfected: Telling the masses to do one thing while they do something different.
Unfortunatetly, ever since Rudy became a force in 2008 GOP presidential politics, we've had more than our fair share of such on FR. So although I do appreciate the heads up, I'll pass. No need to go elsewhere for what we already have too much of here.
It does, and the debate goes something like this :
Leftists Who Hate Human Beings : "ONooOooz!!-western civilization SSSUXZand should give us all their money and live in sewage and tinboxes while we travel in private jets and wear little ribbons and they make us do this by being industrious and successful in technology and OOOO NOoooOOz they are destroying our own private Petit Trianons! Kill them all!"
Those who abhor tyranny/socialism/communism/despotism AKA "The Right" : It is a wise thing to conserve our resources (hence CONSERVATIVISM) and nature has BENEFITED from our God-given intelligence and abilities to utilize resources and make a cleaner, brighter, successful future for people who want to leave behind the tin boxes and raw sewage in the streets.
See...I can play the word game too!
Works for me! :-)
No you can't.
If you want to know what the debate is really about visit journals like Scientific American, Science, Physical Review, etc. Don't expect to understand all of what you read. It takes years to do that. The best you can hope for is a Reader's Digest synopsis.
Geologist: this is how we first got atmosphere on this planet to begin with. On top of that, the earth itself belches more toxic pollutions in the air than all the coal factories put together.
Biologist: Plants emit a lot of toxic gases. Plants emit the CFCs...where there's more plants, there's more CFCs.
Historians : there are more plants and trees in the US alone than there were when Lewis and Clark went through. If trees are the lungs of the earth, then the earth should find human occupation 'nothin' but a thing...
Wildlife Manager - humans actually help IMPROVE fauna and flora by exerting foraging and hunting practices where nature meets with human populations.
Weatherman - I can't predict exactly whats going to happen in a month, much less in a year. Why do people keep asking what is going to happen in 10 years? Hello!! Ted Danson, anyone?
Global warming is a political prop, period. NO SCIENCE to it at all. May I recommend Bjorn Lomborg? Or is he just too Rightist for you now too...I have read his book, and sadly he STILL makes concessions to the idea of global warming, EVEN though throughout his entire study, the SCIENCE that he encounters refutes the idea that humans would have anything but a mere nanofraction of influence.
On top of that, I live with an amateur astronomer - I highly recommend you look into what astronomers have to say about sun spots. Sorry, but all this harping and wailing and gnashing of the teeth is FALSE and STUPID where it concerns the REAL earth and science. Its just people who are too damn lazy to work for their own money and are working WAY too hard to scam the rest the world. As is typical of the Left, because they dont have anything else.
If lefties were really concerned about global warming, they'd be passing laws making the clearing of snow illegal (solar heating up all that pavement and underlying earth.
AAAAAaaaand he STill goes for the personal. Look, I can see you have been on here since at least 2001. Obviously you dont understand all of what YOU have read about Original Intent and sincere logical conservative and pro-human stances amongst my fellow FReepers...so maybe you should ahve someone give YOU a Reader's Digest version of the Right's position...oh, and make sure its not published by MoveOn.org. I hear Soros spent a lot of money to give his robots time to finger-punch the short phrases it would take to print out their talking points. Not much science where he's concerned I assure you.
Yep...and blind to our faults, just as the Bible cautions. I refer to the Bible because I think it speaks to you, but that caution is in all decent philosophies.
Democracies and true Republics don't war against each other
I don't think that's true. I think it's just currently trendy propaganda. Certainly the classical Greek city states warred against each other. We had no trouble decimating the 5 civilized tribes in our thirst for wealth and land. Nor in seizing half of Mexico when we wanted it...or in taking Panama from Columbia. The European colonialists were far more democratic than those they conquered...and far more greedy and agressive. And they didn't hesitate to battle each other. Sorry but I think human beings are basically greedy pigs with a very thin veneer of civilization and respect for law.
It's the Left that seeks to corrupt the sexual innocence of toddlers, destroy families and impose lame appeal upon appeal in efforts to prevent the swift sure capital punishment of pederast 'priests' and their ilk
Yeah much of the modern Left has gone off the deep end...but you are too kind to your own. I recently watched a great movie about surfing "Riding Giants" which casually mentions that the Calvinists killed surfing because of its supposed immorality. Also Hawaiians have a saying "In the beginning we had the land and they had the Bible. Now it's the other way around". True. Too, too, true.
Understanding the basic facts and theories underlying the debate on global warming takes years of work and effort. Living with an amateur astronomer doesn't cut it. Nor does reading endless political crap.
What about Bjorn Lomborg? He doesn't deny global warming. He doesn't even deny that it might be caused by human activity. He takes the position that it's useless to try to reverse it, that it's better to adapt. So what? His is just another voice, more educated and rational than most, but still not at the heart of the matter. He's a statistician and has never claimed to be more.
You still don't get it. You refuse to get it. You've decided that it's all a political conspiracy and that you don't have to learn anymore. That there's nothing more to learn.
but you know what, I'll give you props for pointing out the very sticking point : its true - there is SO much out there scientifically speaking that is hard to boil down to mere blurbs in a news article. That serves to make MY point - the scaremongering of the global warming acolytes is full of **** because they are willing to take bits and pieces of it and use it to HURT those who dont agree with them. Boils down to is there are an awful lot of Elitist PIGS out there who dont give a damn about the Real World and free enterprise and technology. It has messed up their Petit Trianon and given the unwashed masses access to those things they once hoarded for themselves...and they are PO'd about it. That's all it is.
The Left is NOT serious about global warming...but for other, much more threatening reasons. Combating global warming means seriously cutting back on energy use, on economic development. That means cutting back on population growth. And that means seriously attacking third world cultures, maybe genocidally doing so.
The Left doesn't want any part of that so they will first claim that there's some sort of vast conspiracy to prevent the development and use of alternative energy sources, and then claim that birthrates in the third world will automatically drop as it becomes wealthier...and that it is the duty of the first world to hasten such an outcome by redistributing its wealth - inotherwords the rich, white world must pay for its sins...and pay...and pay.
By "traditional culture", what exactly do you mean? And which traditional culture? Chinese eastern? Middle eastern? European western? American western? North African? Or do you mean all of them?
Maybe traditional European monarchies or European Socialism? How about traditional American capitalism?
Which of the above has brought the most death? Are the Americans that died in WW2 or Korea any more dead than the 15-20 million murdered and starved by Stalin or Mao? How about the 2-3 million Cambodians murdered in the mid 70s?
Are those that died when the Moors overran Spain more dead than the 50 million that have died from malaria thanks to Silent Spring & good intentions?
What "nontraditional" cultures have thus far demonstrated themselves to be superior to American capitalism in regards to the quality of life for the most people?
Ah well, enough of that. But I am trying to make a point, and am not being hostile.
I would also submit to you that being able to present loony people from the right is not evidence of a failed outlook any more than presenting honest, hard working people on the left makes liberal socialism superior. Both extremes of people can be found in any walk of life.
I also suggest that unless one has a way of altering the nature of man and mankind, wars will continue. I further suggest that more people die from poverty, hunger, disease and natural disasters where there is less freedom, not more.
Certainly the classical Greek city states warred against each other. GRANTED, UNDER AUTOCRATS.
We had no trouble decimating the 5 civilized tribes in our thirst for wealth and land. VARIOUS GROUPS HAD VARIOUS AGENDAE; MANY WERE CONTENT TO LIVE IN PEACE ALONGSIDE. OTHERS WERE RAPACIOUS.
Nor in seizing half of Mexico when we wanted it...or in taking Panama from Columbia. DISAGREED. FOUGHT, BOUGHT and PAID FOR.
The European colonialists were far more democratic than those they conquered...and far more greedy and agressive.
MORE AGGRESSIVE? DISAGREE. AND NOT INTO HUMAN SACRIFICE LIKE THE MAYANS ETC....
And they didn't hesitate to battle each other. AGREED BUT THEY WERE SUBJECTS OF MONARCHS.
Sorry but I think human beings are basically greedy pigs with a very thin veneer of civilization and respect for law.
GUESS WHAT? TOTALLY AGREED--THERE, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO I.
The jury is always out on most scientific issues. Everything is constantly questioned, revisited, revised. The problems surrounding quantum mechanics and relativity are still unresolved...even though we know something is wrong, they both can't be completely correct because there are contradictions.
Regardless, the consensus is that global warming is real and is closely related to our use of fossil fuels. Consensus doesn't mean true...but, as I stated earlier, there is no Einstein arguing the negative...and Einstein does seem to have been wrong about quantum mechanics which remains the most successful scientific theory yet devised (a large part of which can be attributed to Einstein. A great irony).
he left is making every effort to stifle debate... Of course, that seems to be the left's modus operandi on most issues.
True. But the right is no better. Self-interest, pride, political passions, and tribal loyalties trump rationality for as long as possible.
I mean all of them. I don't for a minute deny that American democratic capitalism is the best society to yet grace the earth...but I do say it is very far from perfect, I do say it must adapt to changing circumstances along with every other living thing, and I do say that "democratic capitalism" is very far from describing American culture and that many of the things we fight about - such as abortion - have very little to do with those two words. We can be, for example, democratic capitalists whether we are pro-life or pro-abortion.
I gotta crash, but I will respond with my thoughts on your remarks tomorrow sometime. Cheers.
This is so right-on, and the libs cannot deny it because they are so heavily invested in not being "judgmental," even to the point of looking the other way when things like Saddam & Sons, Kim Jong, child molesters being released back into the general population, etc., are going on, every day right now.
The ultimate hypocrisy is Al Gore and RFK Jr.flying around the country in private jets, riding in limos and having several large homes telling us that we need to cut back on our lifestyle to save the planet.
I left ZPG (Zero Population Growth) more than 10 years ago because of it. More recently, the Sierra Club almost split apart over the same issue in the form of illegal immigration.
...I'm sure he can read just fine...he just wanted to get in a free lick at Catholics...not an unpopular pastime on this forum...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
True. We are closer to socialism than capitalism. And many don't realize that. So, when I hear a liberal complaining that capitalism isn't working, I point out that much of what they see as not working is not working because it is no longer capitalism.
For example, we have semi-socialized health care in this country right now. It is very far removed from having real market influence. Yet liberals complain that the problems in health care cost and delivery are the result of capitalism, when in truth, government intervention and control are primarily responsible.
Man's nature is what it is, thus some things can never be "fixed". For our society to improve it must have less micro management, not more. More individual freedom, not less.
I'm sorry but you're hearing something I didn't say.
What I did say was that our system works better than any other yet devised but that it's far from perfect. You want to say that it's as perfect as can be given man's nature, that it's impossible to improve upon, that some ideal capitalist system which never existed is what we should aim for, that all our current trouble are due to socialist imperfections.
Thank you Dr. Pangloss. I don't buy it.
I said a lot of what we fight about has little to do with democratic capitalism and a lot to do with other aspects of our culture, specifically morality as dictated by various religions. The author goes on and on about the hedonistic, decadent left and how it's ruined America. I think he's full of crap. American morality is fine.
I might mention that Dinesh D'Souza recently published an article blaming the immoral Left for Muslim rage. Hugh Hewitt (I think) correctly pointed out that Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Muslim radicalism, was enraged by mid-Western American culture of the late '40s which can hardly be blamed on the Left...and which the author would have found to be the epitome of morality. (I think it sucked).
Sorry, I see where it looked that way, but I wasn't implying you were the liberal saying that.
No, I'm not saying it's a good as it can get. Far from it. But given man's nature, it is a never ending quest for improvement.
All of our troubles are not due to socialist imperfections. However, I stand by my statement that much of what is blamed on capitalism is in fact problems caused or exacerbated by government/socialistic meddling. That by altering a market system and then blaming resulting problems on the market system is disingenuous at best.
Yes, we should be trying to reach a capitalist system that has not existed so far. And never will, man being what he is. But a goal like this, of necessity, must exceed our reach.