Posts Tagged ‘overpopulation’

Circular Ponzi Scheme

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The circular Ponzi scheme long described by this site is a process by which liberal democracy funds itself based on demand for its currency.

It takes the following form:

  1. Government taxes its citizens who are above the poverty level, and promises to redistribute this wealth to people below the poverty level.
  2. The impoverished then buy up consumer products, increasing economic activity.
  3. Based on this demand, government makes borrowing easier.
  4. Government then takes on more debt based on the collateral of this “thriving” Potemkin economy.
  5. It uses this debt to distribute money to its impoverished citizens, and repeats the process.

The notion for this odd program came from Keynesian economic theory, which holds that government should borrow to invest so that its economy can grow and its taxes will be higher. This was often described as “pump priming”:

the activity of helping a business, programme, economy, etc. to develop by giving it money:

The government is awarding small, pump-priming grants to single mothers who are starting their own businesses.

But really, this is a version of an ancient tactic of self-promotion by having a friend or relative purchase a product that you have for sale, so that other people will buy it based on its popularity, in effect reifying the false promise offered by its advertisement. Someone who claims to have the best hot dogs in town will do better to have his friends buy a few hundred to make that statement seem true.

In fact, even governments do this to promote their own agenda:

The State Department spent an additional $9.8 million on purchases the GOP characterized as “frivolous,” such as the $79,000 in taxpayer funds Clinton’s agency used to buy up copies of President Obama’s book or the $53,004 her agency spent on “marble polishing services” at the U.S. embassy in Brasilia “during the summer of 2010.”

The liberal democratic governments of the West rely on continual pump priming to keep their economies from imploding with the burden of costly entitlements or social benefits paid directly to citizens, which are the largest source of increase of government spending since the 1930s:

This is clarified by a category breakdown:

Eventually, this scheme will self-destruct when the tax base — those who pay taxes — are drained completely in order to pay for the tax eaters, and government has so much debt that it cannot borrow any more, presenting conditions for default.

Default will ruin the value of the currency. Of course, government and professional political agitators will have taken their money out in advance and transferred it into other assets, so they will own most of the country even though the money will be worth less than monopoly money at that time. These were the conditions in Weimar Germany brought on by wartime debt and reckless social spending like is common in Europe and the USA at this time.

This calls to mind Margaret Thatcher and her famous statement, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Other People’s Money (OPM) is the currency of government social programs. They redistribute this income through wealth transfer in order to create a Potemkin economy where people are buying junk so that government can take out loans.

A circular Ponzi scheme relies on the same “fast money” policies introduced during the Clinton era that carried forth the ideas of FDR, JFK and LBJ to create a permanent socialist state within a capitalist economy. Most problems attributed to “capitalism” are actually a result of this circular Ponzi scheme glitching.

This variety of demand-side economics is popular with Leftist governments. Most of them carry huge debt, like Venezuela, which they default on once the government collapses, but not before the elites get rich, like “man of the people” Hugo Chavez who died a billionaire.

One problem of the circular Ponzi scheme is that it leads to make-work and pro forma activity at jobs instead of productive activity. The massive debt load incurred by social programs depends on lots of economic activity, so even nonsense fake work and importing third world labor are seen as “necessary” to pay for yesterday’s benefits (2009 article).

The circular Ponzi scheme also causes runaway growth, which leads to overpopulation as money is distributed before there is a realistic basis for its perpetuation, causing the lowest echelons of the socioeconomic order to explode in population, as this chart shows:

Like all forms of false growth, the liberal democracy circular Ponzi scheme will result in simultaneous economic, political, social, environmental and biological collapse. Those who stole money from the system — the smartest monkeys of all, in their view — will retreat to special enclaves where they can afford to generate air, synthesize food and live comfortably while the rest of the world and its ecosystems die off.

As usual, humanity is too clever — but not intelligent, which may require the nobility to care about what is real versus backscatter from the neurotic human brain, enough — for its own good.


Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

While the Left bloviates onward about “climate change,” those of us with more experience did something simpler: we observed. We watched the changes over time. We looked for cause and effect in the microcosm, knowing that it would amplify in the macrocosm. And we came to different conclusions.

Mainstream science — people paid to research and for the popularity of the “studies” they produce — has convinced itself that there is too much carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, and that this is altering our climate. Maybe this is somewhat true, but it also hits on the two prongs of the fork of bad logic: its results are not consistent, and better explanations exist.

Watching this city grow and swallow up suburbs and towns, the dominant change visible was replacement of forest and grass with concrete. A new subdivision goes up, and houses and driveways cover half of the ground. Then they install a convenience store and gas station, adding more concrete for parking. Then come the boutiques and coffee shops, liquor stores and hairdressers, fast food and big box stores. Each is surrounded by a wide skirt of concrete.

At that point, people start to fear the wilderness. To them, it means only wild critters that come in through the basement or garage. The safe territory is divided up by roads, covered mostly in concrete, and the remaining “nature” are curated plantings or denatured fragments of forest, with all the undergrowth and ground detritus cleared aside so snakes, rodents and bugs do not proliferate there.

Then, they get rid of the unsightly plants and replace them with ornamental ones. They remove the natural features that animals need, like small creeks and hills, and make the landscape friendly for human eyes with small sloping hills and flat areas for grass. Then they irrigate so that the grass does not die when rain stays away for more than a day or two.

This results in an environment that is mostly concrete, lacking multi-layered forest ecosystems, and where the plants are not the efficient local species that thrive; in fact, what is desired are plants that barely hang on, so they do not need frequent pruning or cleanup. The concrete reflects heat, the asphalt retains it and then emits it at night, and the result is that it is always warmer and stays warm all night long.

Rising heat from the roads and parking lots drives away the small breezes that could gently chip away at the mass of hot air hovering above the human settlement. It seems to deter the smaller rain clouds as well, so the almost daily small rains do not appear. Those both wet the ground and provide water that then evaporates, carrying heat higher above in the atmosphere.

Add to that the smoke — particulates from exhaust and dirt — that hovers in the air, the toxic and mutagenic chemicals emitted by internal combustion and industry, and the gasses emitted by human building materials, and suddenly there is an impenetrable layer of heated insulation hugging the earth.

These are local effects. However, when that locality is magnified many times, the effect takes on what seems like a global effect. It displaces natural air streams, making some areas hotter and some much colder as warm air moves away. It interrupts the natural process of the earth taking on heat and then letting it out at night, which in turn creates greater air flow. Wherever humanity goes, they bring the same practice of concreting, and so the climate is displaced.

In addition, something strange happens with the water supply. Where previously rain soaked into the ground and then evaporated, creating warm currents that engendered breezes and whipped that moisture up into the clouds, now it bounces off the concrete and pools. Storm sewers get some of it, but a huge amount simply goes under the concrete, creating underground erosion that later manifests as subsidence sinkholes:

We also induce sinkholes when we start putting up parking lots and buildings and changing what we call the hydrologic regime. Instead of the water naturally soaking into the ground, it’s now running off and being concentrated—being put into the ground at one point.

This in turn has a negative effect on trees. The earth that they need around their roots is depleted and its life-giving nutrients washed away. Fewer of them thrive, providing less of the shade and strength to the soil that they normally do. Trees also drop small amounts of excess water, cooling the air around them. That lessens also.

Climate change is a narrative. It is a comforting variation on the usual environmentalist idea, which is that we just need to make our gadgets more efficient. What it misses is that no matter how efficient the gadgets are, with too many humans, the climate will change because of how we change the land when we use it. Even developing societies alter it with fields, slash and burn agriculture, houses, roads and harvesting wood. When there are few humans, the impact is light, but when there are too many in any given area, the natural systems that avoid overheating are neutralized.

Conservatives are those who conserve the best of humanity. This requires that they also conserve nature, since humans and nature exist in a symbiotic relationship. When this is out of balance, horrors occur, and fallacies like “climate change” only obscure what we must do: decentralize and reduce our footprint by reducing our numbers.

After Equality Comes Mass Murder

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

Bryan Caplan finds himself confused by the link between recognizing the importance of IQ and wanting most of humanity dead. He argues for acceptance of fact without rancor, but seems perplexed by the vitriol expressed (h/t Outside In):

My fellow IQ realists are, on average, a scary bunch. People who vocally defend the power of IQ are vastly more likely than normal people to advocate extreme human rights violations. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate a One-Child Policy for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate a No-Child Policy for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate forced sterilization for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate forcible exile of people with low IQs – fellow citizens, not just immigrants. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate murdering people with low IQs.

…If someone says, “I’m more intelligent than other people, so it’s acceptable for me to murder them,” the sensible response isn’t, “Intelligence is a myth.” The sensible response is, “Are you mad? That doesn’t justify murder.” Advocating brutality in the name of your superior intellect is the mark of a super-villain, not a logician.

Generally, his point is agreeable, but that is mostly because human groups require a span of IQs to cover all of the roles in society. Every general needs soldiers, and every soldier needs a cascade of leaders in order to give him guidance so that he is not left alone and confused to make decisions he has no hope of getting correct.

However, as one of the misanthropes he describes — or as we might call it, a “human quality control advocate” — I can attest to the power of wanting to purge the weak. This comes more from the conditions of our time than an innate will to do harm based on this realization.

Let us look at the factors involved:

  1. Overpopulation. There are too many of us, and too few good ones, especially in power. The urge to purge the excess and pare away the useless is great because daily, we see many people whose absence would make life better.
  2. Idiocracy. The herd rules us. When we look at the products available and the decisions made by our leaders, it is clear that mass opinion sways the day, and like a demonic compass it always points toward full retard.
  3. Stupidity. Our time is stupid. The cities are ugly, the jobs moronic, the culture idiotic. We want a war on stupidity and bad decision-making, and associate it with the stupid people we see among us.

We also live in a time of lies. IQ is denied, as well as most other natural and intelligent things. When people “wake up” from the stupor of egalitarianism, they react as does any consumer who has been defrauded: with injured rage.

The temptation is to make a continental mass grave to remind future humans not to go down this path because it ends badly. This arises as much from the perception that all decency and truth are lost on this world, and that all is futile, which produces a suffocating rage.

A more sensible view is that we could divide the useful from the useless. A janitor who does his job in a conscientious way and does not live like a degenerate is necessary just as a rocket scientist is, but people of any intelligence level who are given to evil merely thwart the realization of the good.

This would be done informally, in a natural method, if applied intelligently. A hierarchy of natural leaders would be set up; they would decide who to retain, and send the others away. Those who could not find a place would have to relocate to easier places to live, like the third world.

The Real #Rapefugee Crisis II (Cometh The Vikings)

Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

So guess what happens when a population reproduces rapidly without the typical consequences that nature metes out to all expanding groups? This population soon experiences the Tragedy of The Commons at an exponentially accelerating rate. They have no means or method to deal with it. They predictably export this problem far and wide. What did this look like in history? (If you’ve got time to relax with a cordial and watch).

Let these people sail into your lands untouched, and you’d better say a prayer for Lindisfarne. The Vikings were directly analogous to the ecological concept of the invasive species. Nothing in
Western or Southern Europe could stop them. Most didn’t try until it was Happy Frikking Easter, 9th Century Paris.

In order to survive, The Vikings had to export their excess population. Since the whole Adopt-A-Ragnar Program didn’t seem to go well, they had to pretty much be bungholes about it until Ethelred The Unready got the message and ponied up the Danegeld.

Germany’s Chancellor is the modern Aethelred. The Magic Dirt Hypothesis is her excuse and facade behind which she gives it up like Debbie doing Dallas. You see, I don’t entirely blame Islam for the rapes terrorizing Scandinavia the way Ancient Vikings terrorized Britain and France. However, I blame the negative externalities of Islamic Culture and Sharia Law for making the Arab World similar to the Old Viking World in many respects. It encourages being fruitful and multiplying, but in many respects it forbids the necessary innovations needed to support a large population in a tolerable standard of living. Thus, the Hammer of The Gods drives their ships to new lands. Valhalla, they are coming.

Columnist David Goldman famously described Islam as a ring of spears aimed at the rest of the world. It has reached a point where, like the Vikings, the Islamists must expand, must conquer, or in the end they will die in mass waves. They descend now upon Sweden, Germany and any other country blind enough to take them. They are overwhelmingly young, overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly impoverished. They seek their women the way the Romans did amongst The Sabines. And that is the real #Rapefugee Crisis.

To solve this crisis, we must force the Vikings to stop raiding. We need to deny these raiders access to any booty. Send them back home like a pack of hounds of ill omen. Make them fix the Islamic World and sort their problems in house. Make them face what Christianity had to face in the wake of The Thirty Years War. They must face the grim dilemna of having to evolve or die. Only when their violence fails does their Renaissance truly begin. Only when conquest is not a means to prosperity and expansion will the #Rapefugee Crisis truly end.

What Really Killed Those Cute Bahamian Swimming Piggies

Friday, March 17th, 2017

There is a predictable pattern to the way that mass media news outlets report on events.  First reports tend to be highly sensational, and either due to ignorance, bias that favors an ideological narrative, or bias towards the popular (“clickbait”), also tend to leave out or misreport important facts.  This departure from truth is further amplified by social media, which promotes simple explanations that point the blame solely at a guilty few who can be satisfyingly hated due to presumed malicious motivation.  We have explicated the steps in this cycle previously.

So it is with the Bahamian swimming pigs.  After seven of these beloved creatures were found dead on their tiny home island, the first, biggest, wave of mass exposure this event received cast the blame onto a few reckless tourists who through cruel stupidity fed the pigs alcohol.  This was a popular framing, first because it allowed people to indulge in feel-good hate against an unfair oppressor, and second because it allows advertisement of an easily achieved personal moral superiority: look at these pig murderers, I would never murder a pig for laughs, and therefore I am good, even though that’s a very low standard for good.

Now, after the Internet outrage mobs have dispersed to new distractions, National Geographic reports that there may not be any malicious oppressors at all:

Though initial reports suggested that tourists had given the pigs fatal doses of alcohol, Humane Society inspector Ventoi Bethune told National Geographic that the dead swine had likely ingested sand.

Veterinarians who visited the site found large quantities of sand in the deceased animals’ stomachs, which Bethune says may have been caused by a recent influx of visitors throwing small amounts of food on the beach.

“The pigs have been on the island so long, they are used to foraging for natural food,” Bethune says. The pigs would only go the beach for an occasional treat.

But with the increase in tourism, the pigs are relying on humans more than ever.

Though the modern mindset is shaped from an early age to expect harm from intentionally evil agents–like comic book super villains–in reality those threats are not so great, because they’re rare, easy to spot, and easy to deal with.  If the pig murderers had been a few malicious individuals, we could imprison, exile, or execute the culprits and the problem would be completely solved; at least until another set of this rare type of person appeared.

What is in fact far more dangerous is carelessness and well-meaning naiveté.  This is commonplace; its negative effects are far more difficult to spot, and there is no obvious solution.

None of the individuals responsible for the pigs’ deaths intended to kill the pigs.  None of them expected it to happen, and most likely the vast majority don’t even realize that it happened.  If we wanted to assign blame, we would have to hand out a large number of fractional pig murder sentences, which is absurdly impractical and ineffective.  And to hate those responsible, to declare ourselves morally superior, we would need to pass a higher standard than the cartoonish modern conceptions of morality such as “don’t be a dick”.  Those who fed the pigs probably thought they were being nice, friendly, and good.

But we are able to sketch out some direction that a solution would take if we leave behind the need to blame as the most important component of a solution.  Assigning blame is important when it means holding people responsible for their failures, but becomes a distraction from solutions when punishment and retribution take the place of identifying causes.

In this case we see that the pigs died because they ate too many bits of food left in the sand, which was the result of a combination of too careless humans, and too many humans.  From there we can propose either making the human visitors less careless (good luck), or reducing the number of human visitors to the island.

Though this is less satisfying than beating a few assholes, it would mean the remaining cute swimming piggies would be less likely to die — and that is what really matters.

Revolt By The Masses Destroys Civilization

Monday, December 19th, 2016

Humanity existed in a “knowledge bubble” for the last few centuries, having discovered enough to draw dangerously over-broad conclusions, but not enough to see what was actually going on. As more information comes forth, the old theories die, and we rediscover traditional wisdom. Recent archeological evidence affirms the Platonic, Spenglerian and Evolan view of civilization collapse:

Researchers in Guatemala have found evidence of a 1,200-year-old massacre in an ancient city called Cancuén, the capital of one of the richest kingdoms of Maya civilization. The discovery, deep in the jungle of highland Guatemala, provides a snapshot of the Maya civilization as it began to collapse.

…”When they started excavating (the site), the archaeologists started hitting bones, and then more bones, and then more bones, and we then began to realize that the entire bottom half of this swimming pool was filled with human bones,” Demarest says.

Precious adornments found near and on the skeletons — including jade, carved shells and jaguar-fang necklaces — led the team to conclude that the people massacred had been nobles.

Civilization collapse is brought about by success. Civilization is, after all, organization of humanity. Specialization of labor and economies of scale lead to greater efficiency and thus wealth. At that point, many who could not survive without civilization are able to survive, and eventually, they rebel against civilization — because by definition, they do not understand it or that it requires leadership and hierarchy — and in doing so, destroy it.

As part of this process, they kill off the nobles. Scapegoating the nobles is easier than accepting the basic problem, which is that there are too many people with not enough to contribute in terms of productivity. From Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization, by Arthur Demarest:

Another basic question regarding the collapse, decline, or transformation of the lowland cities and kingdoms at the end of the Classic period is why in many areas Maya leadership did not respond with effective corrective measures by the stresses generated by internal, as well as external, factors. Cross-cultural studies of culture change show that “complex societies are problem-solving organizations, in which more parts, different kinds of parts, more social differentiation, more inequality, and more kinds of centralization and control emerge as circumstances require” (Tainter 1988: 37).

Yet the K’uhul Ajaw failed to respond with effective corrections of infrastructural problems. Their ineffectiveness was most likely due to the canons of Maya leadership and its limited range of action. The elites of most Classic Maya kingdoms, in general, did not manage subsistence systems or production or exchange of utilitarian goods. Most Maya polities, while held together by the rituals and authority of the center, were decentralized with local community or family-level management of most aspects of the economy. This decentralized system facilitated adoption of farming systems to the local microenvironment (e.g. Dunning et al 1997; Dunning and Beach in press).

[H]aving their role defined in terms of ritual and inter-elite alliance and warfare, it is not surprising that the K’uhul Ajaw responded through these same mechanisms to problems such as demographic pressure or ecological deterioration. They naturally reacted by intensifying ritual activities, construction, or warfare — the activities within their purview.

Plato points out the same thing: drones are left to manage their own affairs locally, in accord with natural selection. Given help by civilization, they grow in number, and then blame others for the local results of this overpopulation. They want their leaders to fix the problem caused by their own acts, which is classic scapegoating.

We can see in our world today that different types of civilizations have different types of governments. The third world favors kleptocratic strongmen; the “second world” has token political leadership, and local leadership by mafiosi; the first world prefers organized governmental systems which take on attributes of the other two systems based on the degree of decline. In other words, civilization is a spectrum from primitive to complex structures.

The rise of overpopulated drones creates a large audience for third-world style government. They cannot manage themselves, and want government to do it instead, so they depose their leadership and replace it with managerial government. This in turn exhausts the elites, who by taking up their traditional roles in the ensuing government have become slaves to managing unruly and self-destructive children, and they fade away as a result of this existential stress and misery.

Babysitting of this nature is the hallmark of declined or declining civilizations, and represents the root of Leftism, which is an organized form of Crowdism or the collective defense of individualism, which is what everyone who wants to be managed desires. He wants to avoid having to make reality work for him, and instead be told what to do in some things so that he can do whatever he wants everywhere else.

Without being cruel, we might refer to those who need to be managed as incompetents. They cannot take their small local farms and make them work, mainly because as a group, they have reproduced too frequently to sustain themselves. Those who need to be managed desire strong government to be accountable for their welfare, usually through wealth redistribution since they cannot produce wealth locally owing to overpopulation, and their political actions inevitably involve killing off the elites to take their wealth.

Since they are incompetent, and mismanage their own wealth, their seizure of wealth produces a temporary boom — including more population — and then a consequent crash, much like happened after the French and Russian revolutions.

By the time western conquerors arrived, the Mayan civilization was in full decline, which meant that it had a few ceremonial elites of a weakened nature and many peasants. The Spanish were able to overthrow this empire with only 500 men, many of whom were sick with jungle diseases, because the peasants saw an opportunity to further depose the elites. In so doing, they conveyed themselves into slavery, from which they “liberated” themselves in the early 1800s, promptly becoming a third-world society ruled by disease, corruption, unsanitary conditions and crime.

In the first world, we overthrew our elites during the years 1916-1968 by removing their political and economic power. Since that time, we have been ruled by incompetents. In principle and in result, our actions achieved the same end that the Maya did.

From this example, we see that civilization collapse comes about through lack of hierarchy. Leadership does not micromanage its people; it handles the bigger questions of diplomacy, war and cultural direction. As a result, it is always caught by surprise when the incompetents gang up on it and others, in fear of violence, go along with it. Then those others must suffer under rule by tyrants, fools and criminals.

The perpetual rallying cry of the incompetents is “equality.” They realize they are bankrupt, and want to take from others to subsidize themselves, thus become parasitic because civilization depends on hierarchy to exist. As long as one allows the quest for equality to continue, the health of the society will plummet until it reaches third-world status.

Overpopulation Causes Climate Change

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016


Greenpeace has released a new interpretation of the recent United Nations report on human resource use.

The article states:

The report shows that consumption of Earth’s primary resources (metals, fuels, timber, cereals and so forth) has tripled in the last 40 years, driven by

  • population growth (increasing at about 1.1% per year),
  • economic growth (averaging about 3% per year over the same period) and
  • consumption per person, worldwide.

Notice the order of these sources of consumption: first and foremost is population growth, which never reverses itself in the long-term, and is consistent at about 1.1% per year across all years. On the other hand, economic growth only has an “average,” despite varying widely internally, and no figures are given for consumption per person.

This casually confirms — because saying it outright might cause mass panic — that overpopulation is the driver of all pollution, including the dubious “climate change” which is used as a proxy for the increased demands for consumption caused by rising population.

In fact, climate change is the deflection from the problem of overpopulation. Democracy, which is based on the idea of equality, cannot accept any reduction of population. Population reduction either requires hierarchy, where we rank people by importance and let the good ones breed, or random killing, which would signify a failure of managerial nanny-state government.

Liberal democracy requires constant growth because it is a circular Ponzi scheme: government gives benefits to its citizens, who then spend it, which keeps the value of the economy high enough that the tax-and-spend can continue. For this to work, constant immigration and exploitation is required.

As democracy collapses, it becomes clear that its inability to act on issues like overpopulation, social decay and government over-reach was the cause of the loss of faith experienced by its citizens. The deflection of climate change is just its attempt to hide this collapse for as long as possible.

Postbox (#1)

Wednesday, October 19th, 2016


An alert reader writes:

Based on what I have read on thus far, I know that you attribute deforestation to be a primary cause of climate change. So I was wondering what you thought of Donald Trump’s seeming unwillingness to take a stance on the issue. I am aware of the energy plan on his website, yet he always fails to mention any details from it when pressed on the issue in interviews. He always falls back on blaming China which is contradictory as they recently ratified the UN Paris Agreement, of which he plans to somehow revoke any further US involvement. This suggests to me that the majority of Trump’s energy plan is all but an afterthought as it is never really given it’s due attention unless it has to do with creating more jobs. While I would like to give him my vote, this is all very troubling.

This is an interesting question and deserves an in-depth answer which others may appreciate as well. Here is what was sent back to this alert reader:

There are two answers here: practical in terms of the game, and realistic in terms of what must be done.

In the world of the practical, Trump will do his best to avoid this issue because it is entirely a Leftist creation designed to load their solution as an assumption. There is no winning hand for him to tackle this without opening another front, and the answer will be nuanced, so that is bad politics.

In realistic terms, deforestation _caused by overpopulation_ is the problem. One huge solution to this is to destroy immigration entirely and cut all third world aid, both of which Trump has hinted at wanting to do.

This means that his solution is one he cannot admit, but that he has already mentioned, just not in relation to global warming.

So Much For The Myth Of Global Warming

Wednesday, August 24th, 2016

Michael Crichton wrote a book named State of Fear in which he attacked the myth of global warming, pointing out that measurements of temperature change were not consistent globally, suggesting that instead local effects were responsible for warming.

The liberal establishment basically crucified him and he died of cancer a few years later.

However, as has happened with every one of his theories in his books dating back to the 1960s, Crichton was right. Check out this entertaining report from China:

Researchers have found evidence that the pollution engulfing China’s cities enhances the warming effect of cityscapes, raising the temperature by one degree Celsius. Writing in Nature Communications, they say it’s not the bigger cities that suffer the most, but those with the worst of a certain type of air pollution.

Cities tend to be hotter than countryside areas because of the Urban Heat Island effect—the density of buildings and the materials they are built out of absorb heat and radiation from the sun extremely well, but don’t readily release it at night, keeping the area warmer for longer.

As written here some years ago, the culprit in cities is most likely the vast amount of concrete used because it holds on to both heat and moisture unpredictably, and covers over natural regulatory mechanisms like earth and forest. Those tend to absorb water during the day and release it just before dawn, creating a natural cooling cycle.

In addition, heavy particulate pollution like that from car exhausts creates a kind of blanket over the city which increases its temperature. For a great example, examine Los Angeles: a flat plain in a large desert valley, it gets hottest when the smog serves as an insulator. After a rain, when smog is visibly reduced, the city is cooler and the air better.

Global warming is a proxy for human effects on the environment. As usual, humans have created a phantom problem that is smaller than the real problem, which is huge. The huge real problem is overpopulation, because on a finite earth, the more people we cram into it the more we exclude nature, including these regulatory mechanisms. People are terrified of that idea, so instead they are campaigning against actually functional appliances and non-electric cars, pretending that this pretentious course of action avoids a problem because it addresses one part of it.

As more evidence comes out which shows that global warming is a local problem, the herd will have a panic attack because then, the big problem will come into view. That problem requires us telling some people they cannot breed or migrate, which violates the Leftist feel-good ideal of equality, and will precipitate the downfall of Leftism as a concept.

Debunking the naturalistic fallacy

Sunday, January 24th, 2016


The primary goal of the Left is to make you hate yourself. When you hate yourself, and by extension hate the society that produced you, your self-esteem is savaged and you need a salve. That comes in the form of ideology which convinces you that you can become a hero by merely transferring power and wealth to the less fortunate.

Our entire society in the West is in the grip of this mythos because it provides a convenient means of overthrowing those might know better so the lower echelons are granted license to misbehave without consequences. It is no wonder they demanded guaranteed jobs so they could not be fired, casual sex so they could fornicate, and social benefits so even screwing up royalty would not endanger them.

They want to engage in typical lower-caste and third world behaviors, meaning intoxication and fornication in lieu of achieving anything, but them to do that, the hold on power by those who know better needs to be destroyed. From this comes the anti-hierarchy, individualistic nature of the Left: they do not want to be held accountable, and use “equality” to universally legitimize all behaviors so that their pointless and slowly destructive activity is beyond criticism.

To achieve this end, the Leftists have invented a series of myths about how terrible our society is. Through our choice to rise above the third-world level of “everyone do whatever they want,” we have become environmental destroyers, angry, destructive and most of all, bored and miserably self-hating like a Valium-addicted suburban housewife. In contrast, they say, the third world is a place of peace, environmental balance, love and happiness.

This Noble Savage myth exists not for the savages, but so that we feel bad about ourselves and our choice to have standards. Just relax — or chillax — and stop trying so hard, Western Man. Everything is OK; it’s all good, as the hippies say. Stop worrying about hygiene, productivity, social order and culture. Just go with the flow… be the flow. Like those Noble Savages, who are happier than you are.

Unfortunately, like all ideological myths, this one is also not very true. Over at The Spectator, Toby Young writes about the puncturing of a Leftist myth and the retribution that followed:

In her book, Dreger summarises the thought crime that turned him into such a plump target: ‘Chagnon saw and represented in the Yanomamö a somewhat shocking image of evolved “human nature” — one featuring males fighting violently over fertile females, domestic brutality, ritualised drug use and ecological indifference. Not your standard liberal image of the unjustly oppressed, naturally peaceful, environmentally gentle rainforest Indian family.’

Chagnon debunked a sacred myth: that there was something uniquely bad about the West that allowed us to gain power and wealth. Our acts, in the eyes of this myth, went against the way things were before, and so our power is ill-gotten and our wealth, theft. The innocent Indians never had those problems, so we should feel bad about being the source of the world’s destruction and to rectify it, relax our standards and live more like those Indians.

Except that to a student of history or eyes-open observer of the real world, this binary myth — with the good Indians and the evil Westerners — makes no sense. People are people, and societies operate according to their level of integrity and evolution, not some simplistic moral play. The Indians in North America were dispossessed after they attacked colonists, and similar events have happened whenever civilized cultures have contacted the uncivilized.

Much of the “oppression” we read about in history happened when adventurers encountered cannibals who endangered them, and fought back and won. We can always ask Michael Rockefeller about the dangers of cannibals, except that we cannot because he met his end at their hands despite approaching in peace without being a threat. The Noble Savage myth is often stated and always over-stated.

In addition to that, we now know that the peaceful Siberian immigrants in North America may have exterminated many species of large edible mammals. We know this is a likely possibility because these species vanished very quickly, which is a telltale of overhunting more than any other factor, and because we know these tribes hunted them in large numbers. We also know now of the inter-tribal violence not just in North America but Central and South America as well.

The naturalistic fallacy holds that humankind exists in peace and harmony with nature in its primitive state, but the credible evidence shows otherwise. Humans use nature for their own purposes. When a society becomes sufficiently evolved to have leaders who care about such things, humans are restrained from exploiting resources to death, and wildlands are conserved as little-used hunting preserves of the aristocrats.

But in its disorganized state, humanity behaves like yeast, consuming all of the resources available and then dying out or dying back, much like the villagers on Easter Island. The reason for this can be found in the underlying informational order to reality. Each individual has an incentive to exploit resources to the maximum, as Garrett Hardin once wrote in “The Tragedy of the Commons”:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

In the anarchic order of nature which liberals idealize, humans exist as benefit-maximizing actors in competition with others. If they or their families hunt more, they thrive more; others try to do the same. Extinction occurs not by killing every last animal, but by killing so many that the population drops below safe breeding levels and a coup de grace from disease, drought or famine carries them into the void.

We face a similar state in the world today. Under Western Hegemony, order was established and populations stabilized. With the post-colonial regime, each society is now competing with its neighbors instead of having them as fellow states under a Western empire, and as a result, each is attempting to outbreed and then defeat its neighbors. The result is a new tragedy of the commons which will consume every resource everywhere on earth if allowed to run its course, now made easier by Western technology like repeating rifles.

This state of lawlessness was created by liberal takeover which has made the West hate itself, and the Noble Savages versus hateful Westerners narrative guided that process along. As we look toward the next millennium, we should think harder about not repeating the errors of the past, especially those which we have concealed from ourselves with artful myths in the service of liberal ideology.

Recommended Reading