What will be your country's next crusade?

[RedFury]

XT, did you even bother to read the cites? Because from your response it’s pretty clear that you didn’t.

Why? Becuase there’s nothing about them that is “rose-colored.” It’s all there, the good and the bad. Dunno, some might even call it “balanced.”

Funny (in a sad sort of way) thing is, if you do a search in Spanish for “Leyenda Negra” you’ll get, literally thousands of sites recounting history as it was – hardly, yet unsurprisingly , far from an English search. And the former includes any number of highly acclaimed Latin American historians, not the least of which is Joaquin Balaguer, almost endless President of the country I currently reside in. You can say what you will about him, positive or negative (and I fall mostly on the negative side), but what can’t be taken away from him was both his political and literary genius.

Anyway, some time ago, in his extensive career as a writer and a poet, he wrote this book (which, if hard to get, it is, IMHO, highly worth it) “España Infinita”. An instant classic and a true lesson in history, coming as it did from a certain right wing, pseudo-democrat, and and undeniable Dominican Nationalist.

Then again, nothing I can do or say if you gloss over my attempts at correcting your sour notions of what, exactly, we accomplished here amongst our many blunders

By the bye, if you (and as according to you, most Americans learn next to nothing about Spain in HS, whom, exactly, appointed you as any sort of expert on a matter that, I , in fact, studied for years on end…following the legacy of my own father – even if politically, we were polar opposites, his erudition in Spanish history was beyond reproach).

Lastly, I haven’t the faintest interest in opening a GQ thread on this issue. Why would I? Look back on what you wrote and you have your answer – Americans are basically clueless about Spain. So what would I expect to gain? Other than more vitriol from your kinship.

No thanks. I’d much rather fight ignorance one person at a time.

---

Anne, thank you, for both knowing your history and putting it in perspective. And if you don’t mind my saying so, I don’t think you needed any of my cites to write what you did – I attribute it to your own erudition/education on this particular subject matter – rare indeed, if you were to ask me. In my part of the world, that is called “knowledge” and has no nationality nor race. Just the facts Ma’am. And that is precisely what you’ve given.

Thanks again.

Good night all.

[XT]

I thought we were done with this. sigh

@RedFury

XT, did you even bother to read the cites? Because from your response it's pretty clear that you didn't.

Why ask me a question then answer it yourself? Yes, I read your cites. None of them were by noted historians…one was basically on a message board for gods sake. That you feel these represent the best thinking of historians…well, that says more about you than your cites I suppose.

@Anne Neville

You can’t really blame the Spanish for that, though. They didn’t deliberately infect the Native Americans with smallpox- the only ones who did that (or tried to do that) were the British, much later. The Spanish of the time had no way of knowing that the Native Americans would be much more vulnerable to smallpox and other European diseases than they were, and there might not have been much they could do about it if they had known. Nobody in Europe managed to effectively control smallpox until the concept of variolation came in in the 1700s.

Sure I can blame them. Oh, not because they deliberately brought small-pox…they DID bring it, but even I, prejudiced as I am against the Spanish, realize they didn’t do it on purpose. No more than the English, Dutch or French did it (though I seem to recall a story that the English DID try and deliberately infect some of the hostile tribes with small-pox infected blankets…though this could be a myth for all I know).

But I blame them for the callous way of the conquest and destruction of the native peoples and their civilization, the brutal ways they attempted to convert by the sword, their stupid greed and arrogance…all of which multiplied and magnified the effects of small pox (as well as other diseases…though SP was certainly the major killer). A population that is weak from hunger and warfare is more susceptible to disease after all. Granted, the native American’s were VERY susceptible to European style diseases…but it certainly didn’t help with the brutal methods the Spanish used.

Yes, as Red points out, they weren’t the only European nation to use such brutal effects…but they were arguably worse than any other European nation in what they did. To be sure the English and French get their fair share…and to our shame the early American’s were no angels either (and one could certainly make a case that they were as bad as either the English or French, though for a shorter period of time)…but I think the top crown still has to go to the Spanish for sheer bloody minded greed, arrogance, cruelty and in the end stupidity.

Now that I’ve said all that can we PLEASE let this hijack go? As I’ve already invited Red to do so, if anyone wants to continue this start a GQ or GD thread about it and we can trade cites from reputable historians as to what the Spanish did and didn’t do…and how much blame we can heap on their soul-less bloody heads.

-XT

[RickJay]

@mswas

What you categorize as a solution I categorize as part of the problem. Any centralized solution will create more bloat. The only solutions are for individuals to look at their own consumption and downgrade it. I’m talking about personal responsibility, not nanny state inducements.

My personal responsibiuly extends no further than my personal life. You’re dealing with a classic externality; it’s a problem that won’t be solved by individual efforts because it doesn’t make any sense to do it on an individual level. MY own consumption of energy doesn’t have any measurable impact on climate change, so unless it’s economically beneficial to me, I don’t plan on reducing it a single watt.

Make it beneficial to me, and then I’ll reduce my energy usage. I installed long lasting flourescent light bulbs because it saves me money. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t have bothered; what light bulbs I use won’t affect anything. I’ll use less gas if the price goes up. If it goes down, I’ll use more; my car, by itself, is of no importance. You are describing a solution that is never going to happen, that CANNOT happen, and you have to accept, right now, that it is not going to happen. It’s ludicrous.

The real solution is to stop buying cheap plastic crap from China.

If Chinese products are a better buy than Canadian products, I will purchase Chinese products. I’m not a racist. What’s wrong with Chinese stuff? Why should I pay more money to make YOU happy that Chinese people are out of work? What’s wrong with Chinese people that I shouldn’t buy their stuff?

All the big centralized solutions are nice, but no real workable solution will be found as long as we maintain the same conception of consumption, because as it is, improvements on a macro scale will only cause people on the micro scale to adapt and consume more if it is made economically feasible for them. If they do not accept the responsibility for the environment themselves, nothing can be done.

They won’t. On an individual level. That is an absolute fact and there is no point pretending otherwise.

You seem to be assuming no problems can be solved collectively, which is patently absurd. Law enforcement, fire protection, sewage systems, transportation infrastructure, winning the Second World War, eradicating smallpox - all those things are done in large part through collective endeavours. All are specific examples of endeavours that involved economic externalities. So is climate change.

I’m not talking about rock concerts; arguing that collective efforts can’t fix things because rock concerts didn’t stop global warming is like arguing collective efforts can’t fix things because rock concerts didn’t stop the Crimean War. Who cares? Who gives a shit was Bob Geldof’s up to? The OP is about a genuine CRUSADE, not some namby-pamby “I’m saving the world because I walked to the 7/11” feel-good nonsense that makes someone feel noble and superior, but accomplishes nothing.

[RedFury]

@XT

. None of them were by noted historians…one was basically on a message board for gods sake.

Which only confirms my initial assessment of what you actually “read.” Fact is said historian had made his prologue public to anyoone wanting to use it. In fact, it also appears in Free Republic of all places! Yet, even there, with all the vile hatred of Spain that exists, they weren’t able to dispute the claims made by the author.

@XT

But I blame them for the callous way of the conquest and destruction of the native peoples and their civilization, the brutal ways they attempted to convert by the sword, their stupid greed and arrogance…all of which multiplied and magnified the effects of small pox (as well as other diseases…though SP was certainly the major killer). A population that is weak from hunger and warfare is more susceptible to disease after all. Granted, the native American’s were VERY susceptible to European style diseases…but it certainly didn’t help with the brutal methods the Spanish used.

Yes, as Red points out, they weren’t the only European nation to use such brutal effects…but they were arguably worse than any other European nation in what they did. To be sure the English and French get their fair share…and to our shame the early American’s were no angels either (and one could certainly make a case that they were as bad as either the English or French, though for a shorter period of time)…but I think the top crown still has to go to the Spanish for sheer bloody minded greed, arrogance, cruelty and in the end stupidity.

Cite? And please include your current bloody empire in it.

De nada.

[LonesomePolecat]

Awful lot of white bashing going on in this thread. Why is it that lefties can never seem to talk about European and/or American history without making us sound like the source of all evil in the universe? Or, as a white kid is supposed to have once said to his history teacher, “Why are you always teaching us that white people suck?”

[mswas]

@RickJay

My personal responsibiuly extends no further than my personal life. You’re dealing with a classic externality; it’s a problem that won’t be solved by individual efforts because it doesn’t make any sense to do it on an individual level. MY own consumption of energy doesn’t have any measurable impact on climate change, so unless it’s economically beneficial to me, I don’t plan on reducing it a single watt.

Other people have a greater social consciousness than this. They actually comprehend the notion of limiting the spread of their offal by reducing gratuitous consumption. It does make a difference. Every chemical reaction makes a difference, that’s the nature of a system.

Make it beneficial to me, and then I’ll reduce my energy usage. I installed long lasting flourescent light bulbs because it saves me money. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t have bothered; what light bulbs I use won’t affect anything. I’ll use less gas if the price goes up. If it goes down, I’ll use more; my car, by itself, is of no importance. You are describing a solution that is never going to happen, that CANNOT happen, and you have to accept, right now, that it is not going to happen. It’s ludicrous.

You’ll die in a couple of decades, and hopefully your perception will go with you. It’s generally the way of such things.

If Chinese products are a better buy than Canadian products, I will purchase Chinese products. I’m not a racist. What’s wrong with Chinese stuff? Why should I pay more money to make YOU happy that Chinese people are out of work? What’s wrong with Chinese people that I shouldn’t buy their stuff?

Well, aside from the fact that a Chinese product causes more environmental impact than the same product locally, due to the waste created by it’s transportation, I was just talking about cheap baubles that we buy that are usually made in China. The point was about the cheap baubles, not necessarily that they are made in China. China however isn’t a race, it’s a multi-ethnic nation-state.

They won’t. On an individual level. That is an absolute fact and there is no point pretending otherwise.

It makes a difference. Every chemical reaction makes a difference. When individuals taken in aggregate change their behaviors it becomes more measurable. Saying that you feel your effort would be insignificant is one thing, but fighting it when others suggest it is entirely another. Admit that you like consuming more than you need. Don’t hide behind a facile argument of significance, because if you are not consuming something that is being produced another doesn’t have to be produced and shipped to replace it. It’s pretty simple really.

You seem to be assuming no problems can be solved collectively, which is patently absurd. Law enforcement, fire protection, sewage systems, transportation infrastructure, winning the Second World War, eradicating smallpox - all those things are done in large part through collective endeavours. All are specific examples of endeavours that involved economic externalities. So is climate change.

No, I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing that with our current mindset we just consume more when efficiency is increased. Unless the individual recognizes the consequences of overconsumption increases in efficiency won’t make a difference. There are of course some technologies that will make an impact. When the technology to mine landfills reaches the level where it is as economically feasible as transporting the raw materials from foreign nations, it will probably make a big impact. I expect that to happen within about 50 years, as the problems created by global terrorism and increased third world demand drive the prices of basic commodities up. Of course the United States will be in the best position due to having some of the most robust landfills on Earth.

I’m not talking about rock concerts; arguing that collective efforts can’t fix things because rock concerts didn’t stop global warming is like arguing collective efforts can’t fix things because rock concerts didn’t stop the Crimean War. Who cares? Who gives a shit was Bob Geldof’s up to? The OP is about a genuine CRUSADE, not some namby-pamby “I’m saving the world because I walked to the 7/11” feel-good nonsense that makes someone feel noble and superior, but accomplishes nothing.

Not driving to 7-11 isn’t about feel good nonsense. It accomplishes a few things.

1. It reduces the waste emission from your car.
2. It gives you exercise.
3. It may make you think twice about whether or not you really need that bag of doritos.

I don’t think that your, “Why should I care about anyone other than myself?”, argument is very compelling.

[Sitnam]

We’ve done crusades like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs and we keep getting our asses kicked. We need a new angle. How 'bout a War on War, to win all we’d have to do is all stay home, I’m pretty good at that already.

[Omegaman]

I can only pray it would be a crusade against hate and the spread of love for all peoples both here and abroad but I am just a fool with a grandiose dream for that to come true. How about a crusade to stop hate against people (of every flavor) that live in my country? I am already doing this even as I speak but it takes many voices to be heard. Join me in this Grand Crusade. A Crusade for peace and unity among all our citizens and even those who are not. A Crusade for good, for love among-st ourselves at least as a start. Even an asshole like me can take that one step that starts the journey of a thousand miles.(corny I know) But as always it takes only the actions of one to start any journey, no matter how far.

[mswas]

Omegaman Too few people actually live it. Those that do inspire everyone they come across. Just live it and you’ll make a huge impact. (corny I know.)

[Fuji]

@xtisme

…I seem to recall a story that the English DID try and deliberately infect some of the hostile tribes with small-pox infected blankets…though this could be a myth for all I know)…

Oh, it’s no myth. I grew up in a town named after the most notorious offender, and surprisingly enough, I was never apprised of this fact in my tuition at the local public schools.

Cite = http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html

Oh, and don’t forget about those Belgians
*** cough *** Congo Free State *** cough***

[RedFury]

@Fuji

Oh, it’s no myth. I grew up in a town named after the most notorious offender, and surprisingly enough, I was never apprised of this fact in my tuition at the local public schools.

Cite = http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html[/SIZE]

Thank you as well for making both of my points: totally biased teaching and overall ignorance of Spain’s Golden Years, which, apparently, only include The Black Legend.

Having said that, I still have a hard time understanding XT’s blind hatred of his own bloodline.

As I’ve said priorly in this thread, I am not particularly proud of our Empire (or any for that matter) but that hardly means (as XT constantly claims) that we were exceptionally nastier than any others. It is simply and factually NOT true.

One more cite (of the few that I can find in English) that’ll be surely ignored by Spain’s haters.

“Were the Spaniards That Cruel?” - by Gregory Cerio

Were the Spanish that bad? Well, there’s no reason to print up I LOVE THE CONQUEST bumper stickers. As with most legends, la leyenda negra has some basis in fact. Like many invaders, the Spanish committed horrifying atrocities. But savagery was not the norm for the Spanish, or even commonplace. To understand their conduct in the Americas, one must look at the world as the Spanish did in the 15th century. By their standards, they acted with moderation. When the English and French arrived in the Americas, they systematically drove the natives from their land. The Spanish accepted the Indians into their society–however rudely–and sought to provide a philosophical and moral foundation for their actions in the New World.

If that isn’t the history presented in many American schoolbooks, novels and films, it is perhaps because the attitudes of most North Americans are a cultural legacy from the same people–English, German, Dutch, French–who fought Spain for 300 years. Varnished and repeated through those centuries, the Black Legend continues to distort our vision of the past, as well as the present, in repugnant stereotypes of Hispanics in both hemispheres, from the vicious cholo to the “lazy wetback.”

– highlights mine.

Then again, I am sure no matter what I post will make any type of inroad in those that have already made-up their mind – even if conceding they really don’t know much about the topic other than whatever little history/indoctrination they received in HS.

[RickJay]

@mswas

Other people have a greater social consciousness than this. They actually comprehend the notion of limiting the spread of their offal by reducing gratuitous consumption. It does make a difference. Every chemical reaction makes a difference, that’s the nature of a system.

That’s fine and dandy, but I simply do not believe the people advocating a solution by individual effort genuinely have a meaningful social conscience on this issue. It’s pure feel-goodism that, intellectually, we all know won’t work.

Some rich American or Canadian buying a Prius or installing low wattage light bulbs is not “having a social conscience,” and is not making any impact on the likelihood of catastrophic climate change. It’s just being fashionable and self-congratulatory. It’s the worst sort of fad cause, like the people who cared so much about Ethopia for a few months in 1985 and forgot all about it after they bought the Live Aid album.

Hunger and misery in Africa weren’t improved in the slightest by all the moralist bullshit we heard from limousine liberals back then, because nobody wanted to talk about real solutions; they just wanted to buy their Live Aid albums and send donations to agencies that mostly went to the Ethopian butchers who caused the problem in the first place. That’s precisely what’s going to happen with “Live Earth” and the other silly rich-people fads, because none of them refer to an actual solution.

Having a social conscience that means something would be advocating for real change and real solutions, not loudly proclaiming “Look at me! I drove a little bit less this week!” Those “solutions” simply don’t have any meaning to most of the people on this planet, and a real solution is one that will involve those people.

How are you going to provide energy to all the people in the world without generating scads more carbon? Because if you don’t have an answer to that, don’t give me some bullshit about how you walked to the 7/11. It’s the logical equivalent of saying “Sure I’m doing something about pest control, I swatted this one fly last week.”

Well, aside from the fact that a Chinese product causes more environmental impact than the same product locally, due to the waste created by it’s transportation, I was just talking about cheap baubles that we buy that are usually made in China. The point was about the cheap baubles, not necessarily that they are made in China. China however isn’t a race, it’s a multi-ethnic nation-state.

Oh, it’s not about buying stuff from China now. Okay. Funny you mentioned it, though.

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

Sure I can blame them. Oh, not because they deliberately brought small-pox…they DID bring it, but even I, prejudiced as I am against the Spanish, realize they didn’t do it on purpose. No more than the English, Dutch or French did it (though I seem to recall a story that the English DID try and deliberately infect some of the hostile tribes with small-pox infected blankets…though this could be a myth for all I know).

Cecil speaks on the matter.

@LonesomePolecat

Awful lot of white bashing going on in this thread. Why is it that lefties can never seem to talk about European and/or American history without making us sound like the source of all evil in the universe? Or, as a white kid is supposed to have once said to his history teacher, “Why are you always teaching us that white people suck?”

Because Europe is the region that developed both the technology to run roughshod over the world, and was infected by Christianity, which made it more ruthless and aggressive than it would likely have been otherwise - not to mention the dirt fetish that the Christians of the time had ( don’t want to be mistaken for Jews by bathing, after all ), which made the disease problem that much worse. There simply aren’t many belief systems as nasty and aggressive as Christianity, especially the versions then prevalent. “Whiteness” is irrelevant.

Added to that is that the Europeans killed and destroyed so much, that there are simply fewer non-European cultural influences left from that time to be responsible for evil in the first place; or good for that matter.

[Fuji]

@Der Trihs

Cecil speaks on the matter.

Or see Post #50 in this thread.

…not to mention the dirt fetish that the Christians of the time had ( don’t want to be mistaken for Jews by bathing, after all ), which made the disease problem that much worse.

IANA epidemiologist, but I seem to recall that the prevalence of highly lethal microbes hitching a ride on the white man to the New World was due primarily to living in close quarters with many species of domesticated animals, as opposed to simple personal hygeine.

There simply aren’t many belief systems as nasty and aggressive as Christianity, especially the versions then prevalent.

Really? Not even the religion of those fun-loving Aztecs? I would argue that ripping a beating heart out of the chest of a prisoner of war is at least somewhere in the same ballpark of evil as burning heretics at the stake. Obviously, YMMV.

[Der_Trihs]

@Fuji

Or see Post #50 in this thread.

Missed that one.

@Fuji

IANA epidemiologist, but I seem to recall that the prevalence of highly lethal microbes hitching a ride on the white man to the New World was due primarily to living in close quarters with many species of domesticated animals, as opposed to simple personal hygeine.

That too. Close contact with animals to acquire fun new diseases; crowded cities and a positive enthusiasm about filth to make sure those diseases had a great culture medium.

@Fuji

Really? Not even the religion of those fun-loving Aztecs? I would argue that ripping a beating heart out of the chest of a prisoner of war is at least somewhere in the same ballpark of evil as burning heretics at the stake. Obviously, YMMV.

I said “not many”, not “none”. The Aztecs were certainly up there.

And I mentioned European technology for a reason. There have been people as bad or worse than the European imperialists; it’s just that most of them were never in a position to do that much damage.

And IMHO, what made Christiianity so bad in this context is as an religion, it’s bad effects aren’t restricted to a human lifetime.

[mswas]

@RickJay

That’s fine and dandy, but I simply do not believe the people advocating a solution by individual effort genuinely have a meaningful social conscience on this issue. It’s pure feel-goodism that, intellectually, we all know won’t work.

Except that you are demonstrably wrong. If I don’t use paper plates, those plates are not produced for me, not transported to me, and not carted away when I throw them out after one use. That IS a difference in and of itself. When we consumed less 50 years ago, our carbon footprint was less per capita than it is today. It’s pretty simple. It’s not a matter of working in some hypothetical future, it’s a matter of working right now. My ex-girlfriend provided a great demonstration. She consumes less than the average person, is an artist. She would keep her disposable trash, wash it and then make art out of it. I watched it pile up in her house, I saw how much less trash could be produced by reducing the need for disposable containers. Reduction on the individual level makes a difference now, not later.

Because:

less consumption = less waste

Some rich American or Canadian buying a Prius or installing low wattage light bulbs is not “having a social conscience,” and is not making any impact on the likelihood of catastrophic climate change. It’s just being fashionable and self-congratulatory. It’s the worst sort of fad cause, like the people who cared so much about Ethopia for a few months in 1985 and forgot all about it after they bought the Live Aid album.

Catastrophic climate change is largely a distraction for people who miss the point. They are like, “Well the world is going to end anyway, why should I do anything?”, or “I’ll wait til the government/industry fixes it.” Pollution now goes into your air and water supply, worrying purely about the big macrocosmic effect can make you lose sight of what is happening in the here and now. People willing to actually make a change in their consumption won’t just forget all about it after they buy the album. The Live Earth concerts IMO are ridiculous. They are increased consumption, not reduced.

How you feel about it is irrelevant because there is an objective fact at play here:

less consumption = less waste

Hunger and misery in Africa weren’t improved in the slightest by all the moralist bullshit we heard from limousine liberals back then, because nobody wanted to talk about real solutions; they just wanted to buy their Live Aid albums and send donations to agencies that mostly went to the Ethopian butchers who caused the problem in the first place. That’s precisely what’s going to happen with “Live Earth” and the other silly rich-people fads, because none of them refer to an actual solution.

This is an irrelevant straw man. The hypocrisy of some liberal suburbohippies that you don’t like does not change the fact that:

Less consumption = less waste

Having a social conscience that means something would be advocating for real change and real solutions, not loudly proclaiming “Look at me! I drove a little bit less this week!” Those “solutions” simply don’t have any meaning to most of the people on this planet, and a real solution is one that will involve those people.

Consuming less isn’t about being looked at. You keep talking about ‘feelings’ and ‘meaning’ that’s irrelevant next to the objective fact:

less consumption = less waste

How are you going to provide energy to all the people in the world without generating scads more carbon? Because if you don’t have an answer to that, don’t give me some bullshit about how you walked to the 7/11. It’s the logical equivalent of saying “Sure I’m doing something about pest control, I swatted this one fly last week.”

Again, you bring up more irrelevancies. It doesn’t matter that people are producing more in China or India. If you drive to 7/11 that’s that much more gas that was burned in that period of time. If you don’t drive to 7/11 it’s that much less gas that was burned in that time. I am not saying that we shouldn’t care about larger systemic changes, but they are pointless if the individual doesn’t consume less, because people tend to consume at the level of their peak efficiency. If they CAN consume more they WILL consume more. So increases in efficiency won’t change anything if it just encourages people to consume more. The individual has to take responsibility for their own consumption because:

less consumption = less waste

Oh, it’s not about buying stuff from China now. Okay. Funny you mentioned it, though.

That was an illustrative example. I am sorry it confused you. In America we buy a lto of cheap pointless baubles from China. A high proportion of our useless plastic crap comes from China.

For me this argument isn’t about feelings. I don’t care how you feel about yourself or how you feel about me, there is an objective reality at play here, but I won’t bother repeating it.

[Fuji]

@Der Trihs

Missed that one.

No problem.

That too. Close contact with animals to acquire fun new diseases; crowded cities and a positive enthusiasm about filth to make sure those diseases had a great culture medium.

Hmmm… well, I’ll grant you that medieval Europeans certainly placed less emphasis on personal hygeine than their Indian and Chinese contemporaries (or even their Roman ancestors), but if being squeaky clean was an effective deterrent to the transmission of contagious diseases, then how do you explain the severity of the various plagues and epidemics which ancient Romans, and medieval Indians and Chinese suffered? It seems to me that you just don’t like Europeans - why else the focus on their filth? Had Zheng He’s voyages for China made landfall in the Americas, it’s quite likely that the natives would’ve been just as decimated by diseases as they were when Columbus showed up.

I said “not many”, not “none”. The Aztecs were certainly up there.

Fair enough. Though it should be noted that membership in a religion perceived as being more peaceful (e.g. Buddhism) does not automatically confer pacifist tendencies to any individual adherent. Zhu Yuanzhang spent considerable time in a Buddhist monastery before throwing the Mongols out of China.

And I mentioned European technology for a reason. There have been people as bad or worse than the European imperialists; it’s just that most of them were never in a position to do that much damage.

Then why stigmatize the Europeans?

And IMHO, what made Christiianity so bad in this context is as an religion, it’s bad effects aren’t restricted to a human lifetime.

Sorry, not trying to be a jerk, but I don’t understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify your intent?

[mswas]

Fuji I’ve always heard that Doctors washing their hands and cleansing their instruments was the most significant factor in the reduction of the spread of disease in all of history.

[Fuji]

@mswas

Fuji I’ve always heard that Doctors washing their hands and cleansing their instruments was the most significant factor in the reduction of the spread of disease in all of history.

IANA Doctor, but I think that, off the top of my head, the widespread introduction of effective sewage disposal and waste removal, along with strict quarantine enforcement, were probably far more significant factors in the prevention or mitigation of epidemics of infectious diseases in urban settings, historically speaking.

Of course, doctors washing their hands and sterilizing their instruments would tend to greatly increase one’s chances of surviving a surgical procedure, but that’s not really relevant in a discussion of epidemic diseases.

[RickJay]

@mswas

Except that you are demonstrably wrong. If I don’t use paper plates, those plates are not produced for me, not transported to me, and not carted away when I throw them out after one use.

(First of all; who the heck uses paper plates except for picnics?)

As to this, you’re missing the point, hopelessly and completely. Your individual changes in consumption do not make enough of a difference to help. You cannot exterminate an ant infestation by stepping on one ant; you cannot bail out Lake Erie by yourself with a bucket.

Catastrophic climate change is largely a distraction for people who miss the point. They are like, “Well the world is going to end anyway, why should I do anything?”, or “I’ll wait til the government/industry fixes it.” Pollution now goes into your air and water supply, worrying purely about the big macrocosmic effect can make you lose sight of what is happening in the here and now.

Catastrophic climate change is the ONLY point that matters. Air and water pollution can have its bad effects, but climate change has the potential to destroy civilization and kill billions of people. In terms of relevance, climate change trumps all other environmental concerns combined. Nothing else in terms of conservation or pollution control is going to matter if we radically change the world’s climate and kill billions of people.

I don’t want polluted air or polluted rivers either, and to be honest we’ve made a lot of improvements in those areas, even while there’s still work to do. But saying that climate change is a “Distraction” is like worrying about a leaky faucet while your house is urning down. You seem to want to fix the faucet so you can throw glasses of water at the fire later on. I’m saying we need to call the fire department. I honestly don’t think you’re taking the problem seriously.

Again, you bring up more irrelevancies. It doesn’t matter that people are producing more in China or India.

That’s objectively false. If production increases in China and India are done on the back of carbon emissions, that may result in passing the tiopping point of catastrophic climate change. If you don’t think that’s relevant, you’re simply not concentrating on the real issues. I assume you if those increased carbon emissions result in the Gulf Stream ending and turning Europe into northern Siberia, thereby displacing half a billion people and causing World War III, you’ll be convinced climate change matters. Your grand munificence in not using paper platers isn’t going to matter a whole lot then.

Here are the facts:

1. Production and consumption are going to go up, end of story. Don’t bother pretending otherwise. It dfoesn’t matter what little symbolic things you do. They will be up in 5 years, in 10 years, and in 20. If you want to bet on it I’d be glad to.

2. That increased production requires energy.

3. Energy will either be produced through means that generate large amounts of atmospheric carbon, or by means that don’t.

If you want to save the human race, it’s time to get on board with point 3. We need to look at generating energy without using fossil fuels. THAT will have an impact. I’m not saying do nothing. I’m saying do something that matters. Start writing your elected representatives and demand real action on this.