Life at № 42
“In recent years, the term has been used to describe a number of fields of “scholarship”, whose scholars engage in audacious projects to hold back, against seemingly insurmountable odds, the findings of an avalanche of research. They argue that the Holocaust (and other genocides) never happened, that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is a myth, that Aids either does not exist or is unrelated to HIV, that evolution is a scientific impossibility, and that all manner of other scientific and historical orthodoxies must be rejected.”
Best essay I’ve read in quite a while.
I love the way he examines (lays out) logical progressions – in the case of climate change in particular. The aim of those who created and push the denial has very little to do with science or genuine scepticism and a lot to do with being legally permitted to pollute. I hope he delves further into that angle in the book (available from September 13th.) Looking at logical progressions carefully allows a much deeper (and balanced) understanding of most issues. It would be a good thing for the thinkers of our time to map out ways for the general public to be better able to analyse information.
Also on my mind this weekend: How zero tolerance (policy) doctrines are a way to establish and cement sociocultural hierarchies. They remove reasonable/proportional punishment from the equation. Notice that financial crimes can cause widespread devastation yet the consequences to the perpetrators are rarely of any import. This is the modern version of a nobleman’s word being worth (in court) more than that of a commoner. Titles and social station have just been renamed – and privilege based on status has been absorbed into legal systems. Often a wealthy person or politician takes money they’re not entitled to and the punishment is simply to pay it back (like in the cases of the Tarjetas Black in Spain, or the expenses scandal in the UK.) A poor person takes an aubergine and spends the next 9 years in court.