2009.12.01 : The Apocalypse
Two Correspondences Predicting the End of the World
"For even if there are other worlds, how will they differ from the one that starts at this porch? In them, too, death will skulk, like a sleeping mastiff."
- Amos Oz, A Perfect Peace
From: michael stephen fuchs
To: Anna Brooksbank, Alex Heublein
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:35:56 -0600
Subject: sign of the fucking apocalypse
Fucking great. Now not only are we going to be assailed by sidewalk-hogging, escalator-blocking, over-foot-rolling, twice-the-space-of-normal-people, thumpity-thump-goddamned-thumping, draggy luggage people - but now they're all going to be stopping periodically to get at their coffee in their draggy luggage-mounted *cup holder*.
Jesus fucking Christ. How are these people unable to heft a bag the size of a purse, but instead must drag it around behind them like a bag of mastodon meat?
Christ.
m
To: Anna Brooksbank, Alex Heublein
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:35:56 -0600
Subject: sign of the fucking apocalypse
Fucking great. Now not only are we going to be assailed by sidewalk-hogging, escalator-blocking, over-foot-rolling, twice-the-space-of-normal-people, thumpity-thump-goddamned-thumping, draggy luggage people - but now they're all going to be stopping periodically to get at their coffee in their draggy luggage-mounted *cup holder*.
Jesus fucking Christ. How are these people unable to heft a bag the size of a purse, but instead must drag it around behind them like a bag of mastodon meat?
Christ.
m
From: Alex Heublein
To: fuchs@michaelfuchs.org
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:54:44 -0500
Subject: sign of the fucking apocalypse
michael stephen fuchs wrote:
> I'm reading this now -
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6931598.ece
>
> - and really appreciating it because the author actually engages with
> the anti-global warming arguments you and I love to throw around.
> It's a little unsettling feeling like the two sides aren't having the
> same debate at all. Or, put another way, it's unsettling that there's
> such a completely stark divergence of respectable opinion on such a
> weighty topic. As a rationalist, one likes to think that A) there's
> truth; and B) we can more or less get at it. The global warming
> debate doesn't make you feel like that at all. It makes you feel like
> what the truth is is totally dependent on whom you're talking to at a
> particular moment.
You're right - nobody's interested in the truth here. If they were, you wouldn't have shit like this going on: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html (which is probably worse than the leaked emails). Instead, you would have double-blind scientific research happening with funding coming from an independent source and assigned to random climate researchers. As it is, politics and money have bastardized the science behind global warming to a point where no one's even trying to get to the truth any longer. The global warming side view this whole thing as a free ticket to fix any environmental problem we have at any cost (while furthering their own careers) while the anti-global warming side sees it as an economic disaster of epic proportions. When you see factions which are that diametrically opposed to one another you can pretty much rest assured that they're both wrong.
However, regardless of the final outcome the real loser here is science. Science and the quest for truth is what bought us out of the dark ages. The minute we lose our faith in the integrity of science is the minute we start heading back in that direction. And that's far more dangerous than our planet heating up a couple of degrees…
To: fuchs@michaelfuchs.org
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:54:44 -0500
Subject: sign of the fucking apocalypse
michael stephen fuchs wrote:
> I'm reading this now -
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6931598.ece
>
> - and really appreciating it because the author actually engages with
> the anti-global warming arguments you and I love to throw around.
> It's a little unsettling feeling like the two sides aren't having the
> same debate at all. Or, put another way, it's unsettling that there's
> such a completely stark divergence of respectable opinion on such a
> weighty topic. As a rationalist, one likes to think that A) there's
> truth; and B) we can more or less get at it. The global warming
> debate doesn't make you feel like that at all. It makes you feel like
> what the truth is is totally dependent on whom you're talking to at a
> particular moment.
You're right - nobody's interested in the truth here. If they were, you wouldn't have shit like this going on: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html (which is probably worse than the leaked emails). Instead, you would have double-blind scientific research happening with funding coming from an independent source and assigned to random climate researchers. As it is, politics and money have bastardized the science behind global warming to a point where no one's even trying to get to the truth any longer. The global warming side view this whole thing as a free ticket to fix any environmental problem we have at any cost (while furthering their own careers) while the anti-global warming side sees it as an economic disaster of epic proportions. When you see factions which are that diametrically opposed to one another you can pretty much rest assured that they're both wrong.
However, regardless of the final outcome the real loser here is science. Science and the quest for truth is what bought us out of the dark ages. The minute we lose our faith in the integrity of science is the minute we start heading back in that direction. And that's far more dangerous than our planet heating up a couple of degrees…
