In case you're wondering why some people think scientism is a real ideology — not an innocent uninterest in life as experienced by human beings, but a quest to find meaning in depriving others of it.
After an atrocity in Rationalia, all persons are required to consult actuarial tables before issuing their souls permission to shudder.
Guys, Neil was just trying to be helpful. He thought everybody was mad because we just didn't have the information that people also die of things other than mass shootings. But he miscalculated his human psychology formula. So sorry! facebook.com/notes/neil-deg…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you try to protest against “Population Bomb” fears to mainstream wonks, you get a smirky “Yeah, we moved on from that decades ago.” But talk to any faithful NPR Boomer and they have absolutely not gotten the memo, and greet news of a shrinking Europe/Japan/NY with relief.
So there’s a weird effect where mainstream outlets are finally running birth/population decline stories — but after having run decades of *overpopulation* warnings, and then just quietly stopping without ever explaining why that was wrong. So of course the audience is perplexed!
There are definitely still devoted elite Malthusians, but I think it really has ebbed from the Ehrlich, Gore, and Greta-era peaks.
What we have now is mass, zombie Malthusianism. It's arguably harder to combat because it's attitudinal more than explicit.
I'm just home now and will write my impressions up. I'm writing just in my personal capacity as a witness, not a journalist.
For context: I live in north Alexandria, a couple miles from the airport. My drive home takes me right by the airport along the George Wash Parkway. I love watching the string-of-jewels effect of the planes lined up to land — so I'm always paying attention to them on this drive.
I remember hearing Nate Silver interviewed by a big-name reporter about the model showing Clinton with 65% odds. The reporter says "Okay, 65%, put that in context—how often does someone with that big a lead win?" There's an awkward pause. Silver says: "Well, 65% of the time."
Imperfect analogy, but this account of democracy feels like arguing that a marriage certificate not only constitutes a marriage, but is all that constitutes a marriage.
If you go to certain Melanesian islands and find long strips of pavement and wave your hands around in just the right way, will huge quantities of food drop from the sky? Well, sort of, yes! Under the right conditions. (Namely: If it's 1942 and you are a soldier for Tojo.)
In virtually every case where engineers view their life mission as "saving humanity," it's a huge win for society if they can be successfully diverted from it.
The scientists/engineers who've done the most for the survival of the species were driven primarily by ordinary careerism and a tinkerer's obsessiveness. The ones who set out specifically to "save humanity" wind up either trying to destroy it or founding a rationalist subreddit.
This article is based on a remarkable falsehood: "at nine weeks the nascent embryo is not discernible to the naked eye."
At 9 weeks of pregnancy, a human embryo is 3/4 to 1 inch long — med books compare it to a penny or a peanut. My naked eye can see that and yours can too.
Suggesting what @suzania argues here. It's not a small detail but the entire sustained claim of the piece — everyone's been duped that you can see embryos at that stage. Whether the error was deliberate or not, the article should be retracted.
Here are images of embryos up to week 8, with scale. At week 9 they are another 50% or so longer. By week 4-5 the embryo is easily visible to the naked eye.