Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Happy Birthday Danica


A time for joy. The 7 billionth person living today was born Sunday. Danica Mae Camacho, 5 1/2 pounds, was born in Manila. Her mom, Camille, said "She looks so lovely". I agree!

Overpopulation hysterics reacted to her impending birth in character:

"Let's assume the average weight, or mass, of a human is 50 kilograms, or 120 pounds," University of Washington paleontologist and The Flooded Earth author Peter Ward told AlterNet. "That takes into account all the fat men, and all the kids, so it's a ballpark figure. That means 350 billion kilograms, or 770 billion pounds, of humanity on the planet. I wonder if this is the highest mass of any chordate on Earth. Only rats might weigh more of all natural populations."[emphasis mine]
Nice.

The overpopulation myth is perhaps the most intractable and odious scientific hoax in history. Beginning with Malthus in the late 18th century, and continuing through Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren in our generation, overpopulation alarmists have predicted immanent catastrophe through starvation and disease and overcrowding. Of course, human population has grown considerably, and with each generation come the dire predictions. Paul Ehrlich predicted that 40 million Americans would starve by 1980, and that England would disappear by 2000. John Holdren (President Obama's science advisor) thought the crisis was so severe that he endorsed forced sterilization and the placement of contraceptives in public drinking water and government-issued birth licenses. The overpopulation movement is inherently totalitarian, and not merely in theory. It is responsible in a very direct way for a horrendous crime against humanity.

Yet with more people we have more, not less, prosperity.

Overpopulation science is junk science. Every prediction by every population hysteric for the past 200 years has been wrong. There is probably no "scientific" theory in modern times that has been refuted so utterly as the overpopulation hoax.There is no link whatsoever between population density and human flourishing, and the Green Revolution has essentially eliminated famine by natural causes. Nowadays, famine is a political act-- the intentional destruction of a population by a government or by war. It's fair to say that the cause of famine today is socialism, totalitarian rule and the conflict such misrule inspires. There are no famines in capitalist democracies.

It's ironic that population control schemes invariably invoke socialist and totalitarian means to "control" overpopulation. Yet as University of Maryland economist Julian Simon noted, people are the ultimate resource. We need democratic government, free and open societies, free-market economies, and honest science unfettered by ideology to ensure prosperous societies.

Population control is the antithesis of human flourishing.

So it's time to celebrate humanity. We aren't "rats". We aren't an infestation. We're gifts from our Creator, made in His Blessed Image. Let's welcome this little girl into the world, and pray that she is loved and cared-for, lives in a free society, and has an opportunity to know and love God.

Happy birthday, Danica. May there be billions more beautiful babies just like you.

36 comments:

  1. Michael,

    We've been able to successfully feed 7 billion humans, almost (because around 500 million at least are already on the verge of starvation), because we've had cheap abundant energy.

    Fossil fuels aren't used just for generating energy. Almost all of our fertilizers come from oil and natural gas.

    In medieval times, farmers used to be able to turn one calorie of energy (mainly the physical labor of the farmer and his family) into 2 calories of food (not much better than subsistence).

    Nowadays, it takes 10 calories of energy (in fertilizer, running farm machinery, etc) to yield 1 calorie of food.

    We turn fossil fuel into food.

    Currently, humans use 16 terrawatt.hour of energy per day. An average of less than 2500 watt.hour per day per person.

    Americans use around 10 kilowatt.hour per day per person. Canadians and Australians slightly more, around 11, Europeans less around 5. Some use hardly any at all.

    The world's population, if we are lucky, will be 9 billion in 2050.

    So we need to at least double energy production, an average of at least 3.5 kilowatt.hr/day/person.

    We use 90 million barrels of oil per day. On a business as usual model, we'd need to double all our sources of energy. So we'd need 180 million barrels of oil per day by 2050. A major oil field has enough oil to supply the world for weeks at most. The Alberta oil sands optimistically might supply the world for 3 years.

    We need to be finding dozens of major oil fields each year for the next 40 years.

    Do you still feel optimistic that we will continue to be successful?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael,

    The other point is that Danica almost certainly wasn't the 7 billionth human alive on Earth. Picking any newborn as having that honor is only of symbolic nature.

    It's not true that population control measures invariably involve socialistic and totalitarian means. Most developed countries have very low if not negative population growth without any coercion.

    Countries tend to go through a phase of high birth/high death, followed by high birth/low death with improving social conditions but leading to a burgeoning population, eventually followed by low birth/low death rates and a stable population.

    Australia currently has the highest population increase of any developed country, but it's due to our high immigration rate.

    The best way of reducing population increase is more education and more equality for women.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Happy Birthday, Danica! May you be blessed with a large family of your own one day, and many years of happy life with them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It should also be noted that the world’s phosphorus supply is limited. Phosphorous is a critical ingredient in every package of fertilizer. 65% of our deistic phosphorous comes from a single source that may run out within decades, and the world supply may start to run out by the end of the century. Carful management of phosphorous resources will become more important as the supply dwindles and the prices rise, but inevitably, crop yields will diminish as phosphorous becomes scarcer.

    Unfortunately, the coming phosphorous crisis will coincide with the worst effects of global warming. I’m afraid that those advocating and celebrating unlimited population growth may end up being responsible for more human suffering than any group in the history of the world.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  5. @KW:

    [Unfortunately, the coming phosphorous crisis will coincide with the worst effects of global warming.]

    So now it's a phosphorus apocalypse. And with AGW, what little phosphorus we have will be too warm! Aaargh!

    [I’m afraid that those advocating and celebrating unlimited population growth may end up being responsible for more human suffering than any group in the history of the world.]

    We've been right for >200 years. It would seem to me that you might better apologize for China's One Child policy, rather than predict my complicity with evil.

    Your complicity doesn't need to be predicted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would suggest the casual reader closely examine the language of the responses made by the Positivist and Malthusian thinkers here.
    It is very telling.
    Terms like "afraid", "may be", and "more equality" give away the game.
    This oracular superstition (pop bomb etc) is chicken little style nonsense. Examples given are ones of mass (will 'Science' - Atlas of old - drop us if we get too heavy?) , comparisons to (successful) animal populations, and the current methods of fertilization for current crops.
    The real disconnect here is that most of the folks who fear this particular stretch of sky is falling ALSO think the climate change sky is falling too! We are going to wipe ourselves out and destroy the whole planet, while overpopulating and consuming all the resources- Simultaneously extinct and overpopulated, polluting with and becoming fossil fuels. They are also the folks who PROMOTE GM foods, and rapid UNCONTROLLED technical and scientific 'progress' - the VERY factors that have apparently caused the prophesied impending doom...

    In truth what we see here is the same as we see in the Positivist debates on morality, divinity, the mind, the soul, sanctity of life: FEAR.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @bach:

    [It's not true that population control measures invariably involve socialistic and totalitarian means. Most developed countries have very low if not negative population growth without any coercion.]

    Voluntary limitation of family size isn't "population control".

    There are enormous problems with declining birthrates. It will change the economic, political, cultural, and religious make up of humanity.

    Entire cultures will disappear (Russia, many other cultures in Europe), because when rates reach "low low", around 1.2 per woman, the downward population spiral is irreversible. The women that remain can't have enough babies to stop the slide.

    [We've been able to successfully feed 7 billion humans, almost (because around 500 million at least are already on the verge of starvation), because we've had cheap abundant energy.]

    You AGW nuts are trying very hard to increase energy prices.

    [We turn fossil fuel into food.]

    So lets increase the price of fossil fuel? Eco madness.

    [The world's population, if we are lucky, will be 9 billion in 2050.]

    If we're lucky it'll be 10 billion.

    [So we need to at least double energy production, an average of at least 3.5 kilowatt.hr/day/person.]

    "(1800) With more people, where are we going to get enough fire wood? There won't even be enough horses to go around!"

    [We need to be finding dozens of major oil fields each year for the next 40 years.]

    Everytime we find one, green assholes try to stop us from using it.

    [Do you still feel optimistic that we will continue to be successful?]

    If we can keep you guys out of power, we'll do great.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It was the holy alliance of Catholics and Muslims countries that derailed any meaningful progress toward U.N. population policies in the 1970’s. Religious literalists of the world united for increased human suffering. The suffering that will be caused by policies of the Catholic Church specifically, and religious conservatives generally, will make all other human tragedies look like minor hiccups.

    As evidenced by your constant hateful rants demonizing others, and your support of extremely destructive policies, I can’t help but wonder if you really crave and are working toward the apocalypse that your religion predicts. You and your religion are truly evil.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  9. KW wrote to Mike:
    "You and your religion are truly evil"
    Truly evil? Absolute and objective evil? What an admission, KW! You're wrong about Mike, and religion in general, not just his - but it's great to see you FINALLY see the darkness as a real force to be reckoned with. As his Advocate, you should really dig the Force who signs your cheques.
    Maybe now you can start to consider what Evil is a contrast of? What light casts Evil in it's shadow? Maybe now you could even consider the agency of that light, and it's meaning.... maybe.
    Maybe not.
    Maybe you can continue to flex, bend, distort, and bullshit your way onward in your battle against life, mankind, purpose, and love in the name of Progress.
    Maybe ignorance is not the reason for your constant capitulation-isms on behalf of murderous regimes and despots.
    Maybe you will continue to SERVE that force you have uncovered KNOWINGLY, for another reason entirely: FEAR.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good point, Crus.

    @KW:

    How can anything be "truly evil" if there is no objective Source of morality?

    You implicitly presume God's existence to deny it.

    Funny stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How can anything be "truly evil" if there is no objective Source of morality?

    Your inability to understand that moral standards can be formulated that don't need your childish crutch of a sky daddy to tell you what to do just highlights how very infantile your thoughts are.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @anon:

    This has nothing to do with sky daddies.

    If God is not the Source of morality, then morality is a matter of human opinion. Since humans are discrete individuals, morality is just individual opinion. There is no common reference to which men may appeal. It's just your opinion vrs my opinion.

    Nothing then is TRULY evil, because there is no moral truth. Just opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "childish crutch...sky daddy...infantile..." etc etc
    Could this possibly be a form of projection?
    Why are childhood and 'Daddy issues' always so central to these arguments put forward by the most nasty and hateful of the positivist/monist side?
    I cannot bring myself to see ALL these men of letters and learning as so utterly shallow as to imagine this is ANYTHING like what vast majority normal people believe ('sky Daddy'). To assume the VAST majority of the world as 'infantile' is obvious Hubris. It is one step above characterising the multitudes as vermin, such as 'insects' and 'rats'.
    Nor do I wish to think of them as THAT arrogant to assume we don't all need support and hope in our lives; and that asking for - or offering it - it is not juvenile ('childish') or a crippling weakness ('crutch').
    So what are we left with?
    Rebellion against authority ('Dad').
    A disdain for weakness and mercy.
    Why? Spiteful youth and acrimony, most likely. Young people who are still feeling 'oppressed' by their father's discipline - too young to have raised children of their own.

    The adults? I suspect it has something to do with past years with dear old Dad... or some other authority figure. Mid-life? Who knows...
    Whatever the cause, this angst seems to spill over to the divine...and ANYONE else who does not fit their selfish, frightened world.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Mike,
    "If God is not the Source of morality, then morality is a matter of human opinion. Since humans are discrete individuals, morality is just individual opinion. There is no common reference to which men may appeal. It's just your opinion vrs my opinion."
    Paralleled to my own thinking.
    Here is my point: If you are 'truly evil' then there must be a 'truly good' opposite with which the contrast is made. So by characterizing you as 'truly evil', KW has in effect admitted the existence of BOTH objective truth and morality.
    This could the beginning of an awakening on KW's part, or simply an example of typical atheistic intellectual hypocrisy (and dishonesty)... or both.
    Either way, I will happily note: Mike is not 'truly evil' in my experience. Rather, Dr Egnor is a medical doctor sworn to save lives.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "[The idea of God is a] childish crutch of a sky daddy..."

    Anonymous, in order to make such a strong assertion, I would assume that you are in possession of an absolutely compelling and incontrovertible rational case against the existence of God. My assumption would be that a man of your goodness and intellect would not be hurling what would have to be irrational bigoted slander absent such a case.

    So, please present your case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Alt Numlock: Start with some evidence for God. Actually, start by defining God, then produce some evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If God is not the Source of morality, then morality is a matter of human opinion.

    If God commanded you to kill your children, would that be moral?

    You can't dodge the question by saying God would never do that. If God did, would it be moral?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @anon:

    [Start with some evidence for God. Actually, start by defining God, then produce some evidence.]

    I'm not your theology tutor. The arguments for God's existence and the "definition" of God have been a core topic in theology and philosophy for thousands of years. Learn something about it, and then ask an intelligent question.

    [If God commanded you to kill your children, would that be moral?]

    The traditional Christian reply to the Euthyphro dilemma is that God is not a moral agent in the same way that we are. He is Goodness.

    So your question is akin to "If God commanded A to be not-A, would it be?" Invocation of gibberish isn't a question.

    As a practical matter, if I perceived that God commanded me to kill my children, I would seek spiritual/mental help, because God could not be the source of that command.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not your theology tutor.

    So you've got nothing, but you are too cowardly to admit it. Typical. Childish, but typical.

    The traditional Christian reply to the Euthyphro dilemma is that God is not a moral agent in the same way that we are. He is Goodness.

    So God is limited and doesn't encompass the concept of evil. And consequently God can't actually be a source of objective morality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Michael,

    I think that you're suffering from Steve Job's 'reality distortion field', except your variety is potentially more dangerous.

    The price of oil is going to be going up, regardless of a carbon tax or a 'cap and trade' scheme. It's just a matter of market forces of supply and demand. The demand is increasing faster than the supply could ever increase, and as the price increases, oil in more difficult locations becomes economical to tap.

    Ecuador has a moderate sized field of around 900 million barrels of oil under a pristine national park in the Western Amazon. They'd like the world to pay them half the value of the oil, and they'd agree to lock the oil away and preserve the park. What's your opinion about this idea? The park is on the rain side of the Andes, so regardless of what happens to rainfall in the remainder of the Amazon, it will survive as a refuge. And it's a tourist attraction. And the oil, although worth a lot of money, would only supply the world for 10 days.

    Having enough people to run the economy with a declining population is a major problem, I admit, but that's a economy and workforce problem. It's not going to be solved by the state mandating an increased birth rate.

    Our economy per capita is much larger than most of human history because we have had cheap abundant energy from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, regardless of your reality distortion field, are a finite resource and will eventually become too expensive to use before they run out. We need to diversify our sources of energy. And we need to increase our supplies at the same time, to supply an increasing global population. I'm optimistic that we might be able to supply an extra 2 billion, and also extend energy to the 1.5 billion who currently don't have electricity. An extra 3 billion might be impossible.

    Finding one oil field isn't enough. We need to find dozens of oil fields each year to continue using oil at the same or increasing rate. That's a major problem. The American department of energy issues reports giving estimates of reserves of oil, which veer into fantasy, including a category of 'undiscovered oil'. The logic involves asserting that there's a 95% chance of no oil under Greenland and a 5% chance of as much oil as in Iraq, so therefore there's a 50% chance of a lot of oil, on average ... It's worrying when the Saudi oil minister uses the same report to assert that there's plenty of 'undiscovered oil' in Saudi Arabia. Absolute fantasy.

    There might be oil under the Arctic Ocean waiting to be tapped. A mishap similar to the Deep Horizon one would be extremely difficult to manage.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I would seek spiritual/mental help, because God could not be the source of that command.

    So, in your delusions:

    1. You know the mind of God; and
    2. God is limited in capability.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would seek spiritual/mental help, because God could not be the source of that command.

    While we are looking at this claim of yours, I suppose that if God told you to get together with a bunch of other people and go to the next town over, slaughter all of the inhabitants except for virgin girls and take those girls as your rightful slave-wives, you'd seek mental and spiritual help because that command couldn't come from God either?

    ReplyDelete
  23. mregnor "He is Goodness."
    Now you're just being ridiculous. That would make God a plate of fresh chocolate chip cookies, still warm from the oven.

    Anonymous "I suppose that if God told you to get together with a bunch of other people and go to the next town over, slaughter all of the inhabitants except for virgin girls and take those girls as your rightful slave-wives, you'd seek mental and spiritual help because that command couldn't come from God either?"
    Now you're just being ridiculous. Everybody knows that God doesn't give commands like that anymore. And He was still The Goodness back then, too. And He's got a plan. And they were all bad. And it was really The Goodness to take them in, because they had no one else after their friends and family were mercilessly butchered. And who are you to question Him? And virgin rape, like so-called "slavery", wasn't as bad back then. And the real victims were the Israelites, who had to carry out His Goodness's will. And shut up, that's why.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @modus:

    That God is Goodness and Truth and Being is an ancient scholastic doctrine known as "the interconvertability of transcendentials."

    Aquinas devotes several hundred pages to it, and it was a cornerstone of classical theology.

    You need to offer more than mockery of a caricature. The fact is that you don't understand it, and have nothing to offer in criticism of it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Odd, I thought the second bit of my post criticized it rather capably. If I was only offering a "mockery of a caricature", I'd have gone farther with the tale, perhaps in the direction of the Cocoarist (Matt26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took the cookie, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took the cup [of milk], and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.").
    Which, for an off-the-cuff thought, is pretty awesome actually; cheekily satirical. I think I'll do that just before now.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Michael,

    First time I agree with you: 'Aquinas devotes several hundred pages to it, and it was a cornerstone of classical theology'.

    'Was' not 'is' being the operative word.

    And pages of argument doesn't prove anything, as your posts amply confirm.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Alt Numlock: Start with some evidence for God. Actually, start by defining God, then produce some evidence.

    Anon, I didn't make an assertion here, you did. You now have the opportunity to show that your assertion has a rational basis.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I didn't make an assertion here, you did.

    No, you did. You assert God exists. You have yet to offer any evidence at all that this is true. When asked to do so you dodge, evade, weave, and dissemble. You lose.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That God is Goodness and Truth and Being is an ancient scholastic doctrine known as "the interconvertability of transcendentials."

    In Exodus, God is supposed to have been the one hardening Pharaoh's heart every time Pharaoh thought to let the people of Israel go. This intransigence, supposedly caused explicitly by God, resulted in God killing, presumably, millions of Egyptians young and old. So, when God is supposed to have arranged to kill the entire first born of a nation, that was "goodness"?

    That's only one of dozens of accounts of your God, supposedly made of "goodness" acting pretty nastily. That Aquinas engaged in some rhetorical sleight of hand and came up with some arguments to justify this sort of behavior is meaningless.

    And further, Aquinas' argument are entirely useless, because they are based on nothing but a collection of completely unverifiable assumptions. Change the assumptions and the "nature" of your nonextant God changes as well.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @anon:

    You have a grade school understanding of God.

    God is not an elderly referee in the midst of the game making sure everything's fair. He is not a moral agent, in the same way we are moral agents.

    He is Existence Itself, identical to Goodness, Power, Truth. We don't judge Him; He judges us.

    You may object to this, call it unfair. You can call it anything you want. But what you may not do (with credibility) is make assertions about God that have nothing to do with theology and thousands of years of reflection by Christians (and Jews).

    God creates all, and judges all. He is Sovereign. It is no surprise that we may not understand all of the acts of the Ground of Existence. His thoughts are not ours.

    He has revealed what he wants us to know of Himself in His Son. That is something very beautiful, and it is a revelation of astonishing love and sacrifice.

    You object to His acts. You will have a chance to give Him a piece of your mind, when you meet Him.

    You will meet him. Good luck with that.

    [Aquinas' argument are entirely useless, because they are based on nothing but a collection of completely unverifiable assumptions. ]

    Aquinas made 2 assumptions:

    The universe exists.
    Logic exists.

    The rest follows.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, you did. You assert God exists. You have yet to offer any evidence at all that this is true. When asked to do so you dodge, evade, weave, and dissemble. You lose.

    Anon, I asserted nothing. It was you that asserted that belief in God is a false crutch for those with infantile minds.

    This is a very strong assertion, which an honest person would make only on an exceedingly compelling rational basis. When invited to explicate this basis, you responded with precisely nothing. Having made no counter-assertion in this discussion, it is not up to me to offer evidence. It is up to you to show that your assertion has rational backing.

    So far, you have failed to make a case of any kind whatsoever for your assertion.

    I'm going to have to conclude based on your failure to provide any sort of rational justification that your assertion lacks a rational basis.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You have a grade school understanding of God.

    The courtier's reply. How very typical.

    He is Existence Itself, identical to Goodness, Power, Truth.

    The God you assert to be "Goodness" engineered or directly caused genocide on multiple occasions according to the book you claim asserts his truth. So, "Goodness" is congruent with genocide.

    So, your "objective morality" is in favor of genocide. Good to know that you in fact wholly approve of the actions of Hitler and Stalin despite your crying about them all the time.

    Aquinas made 2 assumptions:

    The universe exists.
    Logic exists.


    You haven't done a very good job of reading Aquinas then. He made many more assumptions than that, you just seem to have missed them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So far, you have failed to make a case of any kind whatsoever for your assertion.

    When a theist produces evidence for God, then the atheist will have reason to rebut them. Thus far, there is no evidence for the existence of God. Wailing about Aquinas doesn't help, since Aquinas' "arguments" contain so many assumptions as to make them useless. (Ignoring these assumptions and hoping that no one notices isn't very convincing).

    The rational basis for concluding that there is no God is the same as the rational basis for concluding that there are no unicorns and that Santa Claus isn't real. You theists dress up your delusions, but they are still delusions.

    ReplyDelete
  34. God creates all, and judges all. He is Sovereign. It is no surprise that we may not understand all of the acts of the Ground of Existence. His thoughts are not ours.

    You asserted that if God told you to kill your own children that you'd seek mental and spiritual help because this command could not come from God. But now you say you don't understand his thoughts. You are contradicting yourself here. If you are unable to understand the thoughts of God, then there is no way you can evaluate whether a command to kill your children came from God or not.

    It certainly wouldn't be out of character for the God described in the Bible to make such a command. So, on what basis do you determine that such a command could not come from God? You've asserted the inability of men to know the mind of God, so you can't rely upon any of the "received wisdom" of Christian theology to make the determination.

    He has revealed what he wants us to know of Himself in His Son. That is something very beautiful, and it is a revelation of astonishing love and sacrifice.

    1. How do you know that? You just spent a bunch of verbiage telling everyone that you can't know the thoughts of God. But now, apparently, you can know the thoughts of God and what God wants.

    2. There is something very creepy about the "sacrifice". According to your story, God created something he knew would rebel against the rules he made up, got mad at his creation for rebelling against these rules, and then to satisfy the rules he made up, incarnated himself into a body to arrange for the torture and killing of that body. One wonders why it wasn't in God's power to simply forgive the transgression without the cheap torture porn theatrics.

    ReplyDelete
  35. When a theist produces evidence for God, then the atheist will have reason to rebut them. Thus far, there is no evidence for the existence of God. Wailing about Aquinas doesn't help, since Aquinas' "arguments" contain so many assumptions as to make them useless. (Ignoring these assumptions and hoping that no one notices isn't very convincing).

    The rational basis for concluding that there is no God is the same as the rational basis for concluding that there are no unicorns and that Santa Claus isn't real. You theists dress up your delusions, but they are still delusions.


    A brand new pack of assertions, but no rational content. To back up these assertions, you will now need to make specific reference to the arguments of Aquinas, and show specifically why they are so wrong in either premises or logic that you are justified in asserting that they constitute "no evidence".

    You must also provide specific reasons in reference to the arguments of classical theism why it would be proper to equate the God referred to therein to such limited beings as Santa Claus or unicorns.

    While you are at it, you'll need to provide an explication of what sort of things can count as evidence.

    Again, it is you making exceedingly strong claims using such words as "crutch", "delusion", "infantile". Therefore, the onus is entirely on you to show that you have an exceedingly sound, incontrovertible basis for making such claims.

    A storm of accusations and insults does not further this goal, since they contain no specific reference to either premises, definitions, or chains of logical inference.

    Again, it is you making the astonishingly strong claims in this discussion, not me. So far, the only justification you've offered is invective and another slew of naked claims.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yep, humanity has been very good at finding ways to feed growing populations - the invention of agriculture, the use of farm animals, mechanized farming, more productive hybrids, the Haber-Bosch process for nitrogen extraction, Monsanto-style GM hybrids combined with organophosphates.... Progressively more beautiful inventions leading to an increasingly beautiful planet.

    An easy and morally satisfying conclusion to draw if you're an affluent citizen of New England. A resident of central Mumbai or a farmer in the Central African Republic might draw different conclusions.

    But, as the self-aggrandizing list of quotes in the sidebar indicate, Michael Egnor is not motivated by truth or ethics - he's motivated by a deep need to get a reaction and be noticed.

    ReplyDelete