![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Falls into the ice and cracks like thunder
Jan. 4th, 2008 11:33 pm
Currently at Toronto Pearson: -3. High today: -2. Got down to -17 a couple of nights ago. Supposed to stay above freezing from tomorrow afternoon until late next week. Environment Canada is saying 12 for Tuesday. So much for La Niña.
Last night, or maybe a couple of nights ago, on the National, there was a bit about an article in Nature that says the recent melting of the polar ice caps is largely due to natural cycles. Last week, or maybe the week before, there was an article linked by aldaily.com (which I'm trying to lay off of these days, along with Leiter) in the New Statesman saying that global temperatures have been stable for a number of years now, despite rising atmospheric carbon levels. I suspect these are some of the early signs of the collapse of the global warming consensus and the effective end of environmentalism. It has struck me for a while that the identification of environmentalism with climate change stands to be a disaster for environmentalism. It could be a disaster in either of two ways: drastic anthropogenic climate change becomes apparent, and it becomes apparent that we can live with it (and don't actually care about those who can't); drastic anthropogenic climate change looks doubtful, and environmentalism as a whole is discredited for at least a generation.
From Walter Benjamin's "Theses on the Philosophy of History": "According to Fourier, as a result of efficient cooperative labor, four moons would illuminate the earthly night, the ice would recede from the poles, sea water would no longer taste salty, and beasts of prey would do man's bidding. All this illustrates a kind of labor which, far from exploiting nature, is capable of delivering her of the creations which lie dormant in her womb as potentials." I might rather take exploitation.
So, how may times did you hear someone say "What happens in Iowa doesn't stay in Iowa" yesterday? Twice, myself. Too bad Stewart isn't coming back until next week; he probably could've done a montage.
I went up to York today and had a look at the lecture hall where I'll be teaching this term, and somehow it made me eager to get to it, which was a pleasant surprise. You know, I like to think I'm pretty transparent to myself. But I just never know how I'm going to react to things. How many people have ever understood just how mysterious we are to ourselves? Nietzsche is the only thinker I've read who has taken seriously the fact that every thought you think comes to you (which reminds me that I wish I had read Julian Jaynes's The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind or whatever it's called: Jaynes, I've heard, argues that in archaic times, people took what we would call their thoughts to be the gods speaking to them).
Last night, or maybe a couple of nights ago, on the National, there was a bit about an article in Nature that says the recent melting of the polar ice caps is largely due to natural cycles. Last week, or maybe the week before, there was an article linked by aldaily.com (which I'm trying to lay off of these days, along with Leiter) in the New Statesman saying that global temperatures have been stable for a number of years now, despite rising atmospheric carbon levels. I suspect these are some of the early signs of the collapse of the global warming consensus and the effective end of environmentalism. It has struck me for a while that the identification of environmentalism with climate change stands to be a disaster for environmentalism. It could be a disaster in either of two ways: drastic anthropogenic climate change becomes apparent, and it becomes apparent that we can live with it (and don't actually care about those who can't); drastic anthropogenic climate change looks doubtful, and environmentalism as a whole is discredited for at least a generation.
From Walter Benjamin's "Theses on the Philosophy of History": "According to Fourier, as a result of efficient cooperative labor, four moons would illuminate the earthly night, the ice would recede from the poles, sea water would no longer taste salty, and beasts of prey would do man's bidding. All this illustrates a kind of labor which, far from exploiting nature, is capable of delivering her of the creations which lie dormant in her womb as potentials." I might rather take exploitation.
So, how may times did you hear someone say "What happens in Iowa doesn't stay in Iowa" yesterday? Twice, myself. Too bad Stewart isn't coming back until next week; he probably could've done a montage.
I went up to York today and had a look at the lecture hall where I'll be teaching this term, and somehow it made me eager to get to it, which was a pleasant surprise. You know, I like to think I'm pretty transparent to myself. But I just never know how I'm going to react to things. How many people have ever understood just how mysterious we are to ourselves? Nietzsche is the only thinker I've read who has taken seriously the fact that every thought you think comes to you (which reminds me that I wish I had read Julian Jaynes's The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind or whatever it's called: Jaynes, I've heard, argues that in archaic times, people took what we would call their thoughts to be the gods speaking to them).
