Genocide Induced Climate Change

Kaon said:

Oh please. The problem with academia (and, perhaps your post) is that one assumes the scientific method is the best and only method.

Click to expand...

Well, it's better than just making stuff up. What better method have you seen for understanding the natural world than the scientific method?

JackRT said:

That seems like a real possibility. A linked possibility is that if such a population reduction were carefully managed it might be possible to achieve a climate balance with a stable population.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking the same thing...

sfs said:

Well, it's better than just making stuff up. What better method have you seen for understanding the natural world than the scientific method?

Click to expand...

You keep proving my point.

Your quips about "making things up" is the same thing that could be said about science that doesn't follow the scientific method e.g. the step that makes it so that a layperson can follow ones directions and independently produce the same results.

I bet you still wouldn't understand why I wouldnt willingly give YOU, for example, the secrets of the universe given your 1) attitude toward your idea of the natural world, and 2) your tone and demeanor.

As said, you can't fill a full cup.

I wonder what effect the exponentially greater genocide of the unborn is having on the climate?
Science does describe that as a genocide too, doesn’t it?

Kaon said:

Your quips about "making things up" is the same thing that could be said about science that doesn't follow the scientific method e.g. the step that makes it so that a layperson can follow ones directions and independently produce the same results.

Click to expand...

And you're proving mine -- you seem to have made up your own version of the scientific method here.

Kaon said:

I bet you still wouldn't understand why I wouldnt willingly give YOU, for example, the secrets of the universe given your 1) attitude toward your idea of the natural world, and 2) your tone and demeanor.

Click to expand...

I bet you don't understand why I don't think for a second that you know the secrets of the universe given your 1) attitude toward science, and 2) your tone and demeanor.

SolomonVII said:

I wonder what effect the exponentially greater genocide of the unborn is having on the climate?
Science does describe that as a genocide too, doesn’t it?

Click to expand...

That, is the right question.

Program terminated.

sfs said:

And you're proving mine -- you seem to have made up your own version of the scientific method here.

Click to expand...

You know nothing about my methods except for what your presumptive psychology allows you to believe - guaranteed - or else, you would have made it known.

The difference between you and I is that I am thoroughly familiar with academia. You are closed to methods of thinking outside of science, as it were.

I bet you don't understand why I don't think for a second that you know the secrets of the universe given your 1) attitude toward science, and 2) your tone and demeanor.

Click to expand...

I know you believe this, and it is the best retort you have at this point, but it doesn't address how academia is faith/trust based - given it neglects to substantiate a crucial step of the scientific method for much of the theory. Any other "method" I may mention does not renege on its own standards.

Magicians don't even renege on its own standards. Those who do get a special derogatory designation.

Kaon said:

How strong is your hope? You know what happens next, I would say.

And, we know the order in which the undesirables will be culled should it get too environmentally extreme.

Click to expand...

The Tutsi first?

"Environmental factors also played a key role in shaping the genocide."

JackRT said:

A new study has produced strong evidence that the genocide of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas during the 17th century triggered a global cooling event that persisted for centuries.

European colonizers' mass killing of Native Americans caused change in climate: study

Click to expand...

I can't help but to find this article politically motivated in the "hate the white man" category.

Why couldn't they do this study to reflect a more recent genocide of human life with Mao Zedong and his murder of 70 million within his time as ruler in the early to mid 1900's?

Or is it only white people that create devastation on a scale that creates climate change, regardless that the Asian dude killed more?

essentialsaltes said:

The Tutsi first?

"Environmental factors also played a key role in shaping the genocide."

Click to expand...

Well people with a lot of melanin in countries with tons of natural resources (but low "GDP") would kill several birds with a single stone. But that is ongoing.

I was thinking more along the lines of the "Western person's problems". We know the types of undesirables that would be the first "sacrifices" for a better planet already, whether or not we agree with it. The slow genocide has already began, but no one believes it (rather, they cannot believe it).

Acts2:38 said:

I can't help but to find this article politically motivated in the "hate the white man" category.

Why couldn't they do this study to reflect a more recent genocide of human life with Mao Zedong and his murder of 70 million within his time as ruler in the early to mid 1900's?

Or is it only white people that create devastation on a scale that creates climate change, regardless that the Asian dude killed more?

Click to expand...

Imperialism is categorically outwardly damaging - in other words, Indians are not the subject and target of providence afforded: they are the props that highlight the reward for the imperialists.


Mao killed millions of his own - a different psychology altogether. It was mass murder; genocide implies an outside group of humans killing a different group of humans - especially a different ethnic group. What happened in America with the Native Americans and Africans, for example, is genocide. What happened with Mao is mass murder.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

I thought your link was going to take me to the Babylon Bee. I can't stand assertions made in the name of science that have nothing to do with the scientific method.

Click to expand...

I guess only physics, chemistry, and biology are actually sciences then..

Kaon said:

Imperialism is categorically outwardly damaging - in other words, Indians are not the subject and target of providence afforded: they are the props that highlight the reward for the imperialists.


Mao killed millions of his own - a different psychology altogether. It was mass murder; genocide implies an outside group of humans killing a different group of humans - especially a different ethnic group. What happened in America with the Native Americans and Africans, for example, is genocide. What happened with Mao is mass murder.

Click to expand...

I see what your saying, but the definition of "killing a different group", that is exactly what Mao did. He specifically targeted capitalist and tradition elements from the society he wished to create.
Mass murder, yea sure.
Genocide of a specific group, most definitely.

Same thing happened in Turkey with the genocide of particular groups as well as Nigeria (although not as much loss of life).

What the article should focus on is the "human loss of life" more than the atrocities of a specific group, in which they LOVE to target whites more than any other to garner hate toward.

That was my focus point: Why just a study on whites causing destruction on a scale that creates climate change, when the focus should have been IN GENERAL, loss of life on a mass scale period. I wouldnt believe one second that climate changes because of ONE group of people.

Chesterton said:

Dying because you have a weak immune system does not make you a victim of "genocide". Everyone, please stop saying that. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. What does kill you, kills you.

Click to expand...

unadapted immune system ≠ weak

Acts2:38 said:

I can't help but to find this article politically motivated in the "hate the white man" category.

Why couldn't they do this study to reflect a more recent genocide of human life with Mao Zedong and his murder of 70 million within his time as ruler in the early to mid 1900's?

Click to expand...

Did those murders result in extensive reforestation? If not, they have nothing to do with this study.

JackRT said:

"...passive genocide...".

Click to expand...

Oh, that kind of genocide, like "accidental rapes", I guess. Excuse me if I can't have serious discussions with people who can utter logical contradictions-in-terms with a straight face.

Kaon said:

But, killing people because you want, or think you are owed their land is genocide.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Rubiks said:

unadapted immune system ≠ weak

Click to expand...

That's racist. I prefer to say they were weak because that preserves their victim status. If you say they were unadapted it implies they could have adapted but were unwilling or unable to do so.

Acts2:38 said:

That was my focus point: Why just a study on whites causing destruction on a scale that creates climate change, when the focus should have been IN GENERAL, loss of life on a mass scale period. I wouldnt believe one second that climate changes because of ONE group of people.

Click to expand...

While the nations you mentioned were involved in what I would call mass murder, Europeans (Romans and Greeks before) imperialism the entire world, and the philosophy was that they were owed the world they imperialism. That psychology also justified their killing of native populations in their conquest - rationalizing that they were stronger and more equipped to take over the population, winning fair and square.

It is the psychology of genocide through imperialism, and the historic campaign to marginalize its affects worldwide that compel academics to study "white-only destruction".

Mass murder happens in every country - the leaders sicken and kill their own all of the time. When you kill others outside of your "own" that are also human, that is genocide. Mao and others didn't see their own people as humans, even though they clearly were. It always helps to see the object of murder as something less than human (e.g. the "savage" Natives, and the "genetically degenerate Africans".)

The Natives of the American continent, Africans, Indians, and other imperialism nations were killed off specifically because they were natives that blocked mechanisms for attaining the resources the imperialists wanted. Again, the fact that it has been historically marginalized is a consequence of the worldwide influence the campaign held itself.

Chesterton said:

No, it isn't.

Click to expand...

You said

which is true. But, your implication compelled me to say

That should be categorically, resonantly true to you (or any student of history and language).

1) If you want someone else's land, then it wasn't yours to begin with.
2) Other person's land is an ethnic and social issue - when one says one's land, one means one's "nationality" and, by implication one's "ethnicity" or culture associated with the land.
3) The deliberate killing of a group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group, is genocide.

Well, connecting dots here, the Bible tells of last days pestilence. I am thinking of the ebola epidemic that rages in Africa. Already it has caused the drop in population in certain areas. I think a study should be done on the effect of ebola on local and world climate. Recent we have seen the return of superfrigid temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.Could this be due to a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere? This is just tumbling around in my mind and not scientific at all.

Chesterton said:

Rubiks said: ↑
unadapted immune system ≠ weak

That's racist. I prefer to say they were weak because that preserves their victim status. If you say they were unadapted it implies they could have adapted but were unwilling or unable to do so.

Click to expand...

Racist? How so? They were "unadapted" because they hadn't been exposed to the pathogens before. It was hardly a matter of choice.