Are We Headed for Environmental Catastrophe?
Frequent commenter MarcoPolo often derides my concern for our civilization’s future. In response to my post: Will We Survive Long Enough To Enjoy the Fruits of Science? he writes, “Doom, doom, doom I tells you! Down to the abyss, to ruin and the apocalypse! Hmmm. What’s happened that’s so catastrophic? In reality, not very much!”
Come on. If you’re not concerned about our planet’s capacity to support life given the current environmental issues, you’re not as smart as I’ve credited you for all these years.
I challenge you (and all other readers) to watch this riveting 11-minute video, a recent lecture by Noam Chomsky, and still conclude that we have no critical issues that need to be addressed. Of course, you could choose the approach of the ad hominem attack and write it off because of its source (a liberal intellectual)—or you could be rational about it, and pay careful attention. Strictly up to you.
Craig,
You have an unusual definition of “ad hominem” ! Your definition that anyone not adhering to your adulation of Noam Chomsky must be “less smart” ! Equally, your claim that any criticism of your icon must be dismissed as “ad hominem”, thereby making any constructive analysis of his pronouncements difficult.
Writers, thinkers and advocates such as Noam Chomsky don’t exist in a vacuum . Their advocacy must be assessed within the context of their circumstances, political, ideological and philosophical backgrounds, along with other influences.
Such an assessment is not “ad hominem”,(attacking the person rather what they’re saying) but putting the persons observations in context.
It’s not “ad hominem” to point out that Noam Chomsky while a considerable intellect in many fields, has built his career advancing leftist (liberal) agenda’s.
IMHO, the lecture you have chosen doesn’t reveal Noam Chomsky at his best. His reasoning reveals his age. Noam Chomsky’s errors and erratic ramblings hark back to a past era when such musings were eagerly soaked up by adoring young students eager for rebellion, dissent and anti-American sentiment.
Noam Chomsky seems to get lost at stages of his peroration. At one stage he mistakenly claims the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (Brexit) ends the UK’s NATO membership. Based on this error he claims ” Britain can no longer be the voice of America in NATO against Russia, and the end of American influence in Europe” !
He follows this by the weird assertion that the US should have helped preserve the USSR, dismantled NATO and replaced the American shield with a revitalized USSR as a sort of benign member of the EU. His assumption that the USSR, would have been a benign influence because of it was led by Gorbachev, is bewildering and delusional.
His solution is a weird, but dangerous, form of appeasement that pre-dates the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Equally so is his concept that the PRC is capable of forming and leading a benign trade-political-military alliance that includes an “independent” Siberia.(I can just see Putin agreeing to that!)
What is his next target ? Corporate wealth and power which he describes as “totalitarian” organizations. It’s true his venom at the existence of multi-national corporations is vague, but he seems to be advocating a form of nationalization of ownership.
His entire oration seemed to be stuck in the 1960’s ! On the one hand he fears the “America provoking a nuclear war with Russia” on the other condemns the election of Donald Trump, (the most pro-Russian President ever) as increasing the likelihood of that confrontation !
I’m afraid judging by this lecture, Noam Chomsky has become a rather sad figure, clinging desperately to the now long obsolete causes of his heyday, like a silent screen star in a digital age.
I hope his legacy with be remembered for his many achievements, not marred by his decline.
I fail to see how the sort of fuzzy, outdated concepts mooted by Noam Chomsky have any relevance in 2017.