Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
It takes a courageous Mormon to turn to archaeology to support their argument
james_nicoll
Orson explains how the West can fall.

In an unexpected twist, it turns out to save the West and dare I say it, civilization itself, American needs to continue the War on Terror.

You know, people were disagreeing with me just last month about the Brain Eater and Card. Paraphrasing, "He's just a ham. He won't ever go too far, because he always has one eye on his audience."

I suppose that might be true, if his audience is the basement-dwelling Cheetoteriat with the Rush Limbaugh audio implant.

His Slan Hunter nym will be Nolan Pratt.

The brain eater came for Card long ago, Carlos. I'm with you on this one.

-Will (http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com).

He's also about three, four years late for this Big Think Clash of Civilizations stuff. It comes from his being an intellectual consumer, I suppose (using the word 'intellectual' loosely). Not a producer.

Somewhere in "The Originist", Card makes a metaphor about scholars his Mary Sue character dislikes, comparing them to rodents who gnaw at ivory and then think their turds are priceless. Psychological projection is an amazing thing.

Hmm. I admit to not being the most critical of thinkers, but it sounds like he's demonstrated that civilization will fall because the US invaded Iraq... though he kinda glossed over that first step.

Bummer.

I'm still giggling at "differently-empired." :)

And a great arguement for finding alternate fuels now.

We've got one. Uranium. There's plenty of it. People are a-scared of it is the problem, because they're a bunch of ignorant sheep.

I realized after about 1.4 paragraphs that I just can't read that crap.

It's entirely possible that this time he's not going after a group I identify with, but I don't feel comfortable taking the risk, especially for something you've warned me is stupid.

I made it farther, but when he praised something Mark Steyn wrote I gave up. It's not worth my time to play "spot the logical fallacy."

The problem with the "it didn't really fall" thesis is that it is inspired far more by contemporary multiculturalism than by any new evidence.


Odd. In Carnage and Culture Victor Davis Hanson details plenty of evidence that the Dark Ages really weren't all that dark, and a lot of what made the Romans so powerful and influential did in fact live on and continue in an unbroken line of tradition. Martel's Franks at Poitiers fought in a way that would be instantly recognizable not only to Roman legionnaires but also to Spartan hoplites. There were more independent histories published in Europe during the Dark Ages than in the Ottoman Empire during its entire existence. That sort of thing.

And about the last thing I think Victor Davis Hanson could be maligned as is a multiculturalist.

He refers to "numbers" not lying, but apparently doesn't refer to them enough. Skipping the flaws in his side arguments, even his central thesis on the collapse of the West is unjustified by numbers.

From this past November:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
But [Iraq] currently pumps just 2.3 million barrels per day and exports 1.6 million of that, according to the State Department's tracking report on the country, still short of what it produced before the invasion.

That represents a fraction of the 85 million barrels produced around the world each day and less than the surplus capacity of Saudi Arabia and other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, meaning in a crisis they could ramp up their wells to make up for the shortfall, analysts said. The United States also has 688 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, enough to counter a disruption of Iraqi oil for 14 months.
And that's not even factoring in the reserves that other industrialized countries could bring to the table should an extended shutdown of Iraqi oil export occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_strategic_petroleum_reserves
A year is plenty of time to ramp up spare oil production globally.

Thus, Card's "post-Peak Oil"-styled doomsday scenario as being most likely is bunk on that basis alone. (Speaking of doomsaying, Card is also apparently ignorant of how petroleum-dependent modern agriculture is with regard fertilizer manufacturing.)

It is ironic that Card is now essentially advocating war for oil.

A year is plenty of time to ramp up spare oil production globally.


There's hardly any spare refinery capacity. Unless you can do something useful with crude oil without any subsequent processing, that's more relevant than unused oil production.

Thus, Card's "post-Peak Oil"-styled doomsday scenario as being most likely is bunk on that basis alone. (Speaking of doomsaying, Card is also apparently ignorant of how petroleum-dependent modern agriculture is with regard fertilizer manufacturing.)

It is ironic that Card is now essentially advocating war for oil.


I was wondering, reading through the article, how those dastardly Muslims managed to dry up all the oil in Alberta while they were taking over Europe. Maybe they have an orbital laser of some kind.

On a more serious note, isn't the French energy economy largely nuclear? Would they really collapse if oil became hard to find?

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
Oh great.

Card is completely oblivious to how much harm the US has done by protecting the Saudi regime, I take it. We could have let the secular dictator Saddam overrun the most ideologically toxic rat's nest in the Islamic world, and bin Laden would have either died fighting the Iraqi Army with his insurgents or escaped with no grudge against the US for bringing infidels to "the land of the two holy places".

Actually, we really should have taken down the Saudi ourselves - after all, we sold them nearly their entire army, apart from the troops.

(Deleted comment)
Mark Steyn is a _theater_ critic, not a sociologist, by training.

That makes him more credible than most sociologists.

This is just embarassing, manipulative, and ultimately insulting dreck on Card's part.

Is this a surprise? I'm still trying to figure out why anyone pays attention to anything he's written that isn't a novel of fiction that's less than 15 years old.

Considering that one of his complaints about theater is that it was ruined by the gays....

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
What actual basis does he (or you for that matter) have to claim that Chinese men who can't find a woman are just going to go off their nut and wage war?

I'm trying to find a cite for this, but I no longer have the book in question. Some historians have theorized that the large number of single, unemployed young men in China was a partial factor in the end of the Qing dynasty (early 20th century) and the rise of Chinese nationalism.

(Deleted comment)
By itself, the stuff on Rome and Minoan and the measurable collapse of international trading systems seemed interesting and not obviously wrong. And while I wouldn't predict what China's male excess will mean, it hardn'y seems crackpotty to be worried about it. Just because it's Card saying it doesn't suddenly make it wrong.

(Deleted comment)
The stuff on Rome is oversimplified and condensed but not entirely wrong. I could go through it point by point quibbling, but the only thing where he's really wrong is about the legacy of Rome in the Wets excluding Britain. (Note that these people are still speaking debased forms of Latin, not barbarian languages.) He wants to read Hanson, as cited above. He could also do with reading Gies and Gies Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel, which quite clearly goes into the tech explosion that accompanied the fall of Rome -- yes, no more major public works, no protected trade, no olive oil and menstrual sponges from the Med all over Europe, but introduction of the horse collar, stirrups, waterwheels. The fall of Rome in the West can best be seen as moving from a slave economy with nifty cities to a peasant economy with nifty villages.

I'll stop now. I could go on all day.

The Minoan stuff however is total claptrap. Michael Grant, for goodness sake! And the modern analogy -- did you see how many cards he was palming?

I used to love his books.

Now, I may be wrong, but weren't the WWI-era Germans called the Huns, not the Nazis?

-- Wakboth

I'd just like to nominate...

wdstarr

2006-12-21 09:36 pm (UTC)

"It takes a courageous Mormon to turn to archaeology to
support their argument" for addition to the James Nicoll
Neat Quotes compilation in Wikipedia.


(If I wanted to learn the Wikipedia Secret Handshak^H^H^H^H
how to register there or whatever it is one has to do to be
able to manipulate entries, I'd do it myself. But I don't.)


Re: I'd just like to nominate...

mmcirvin

2006-12-22 12:51 am (UTC)

You don't have to do anything but click on the "edit" tab, actually--it appears that that particular page (like most of them) is open to anonymous editing.