At least that's what RightWingNews.com would have you think. The story, emailed to me as a link, purports that the famed Mongol conqueror is being "rehabilitated" as an environmental hero by the left, an assertion without evidence that is certainly not true. Full story here:
http://rightwingnews.com/2011/01/genghis-khan-eco-warrior/
Of course, they selectively quote from the article to try and make it seem that the authors were acting to advocate rather than simply report. In short, the original piece notes that, in a study of climate fluctuations in human history, by far the largest fluctuation before the current era was a period of cooling following the conquests of Genghis Khan, cooling that can be directly related to his actions. Because of the estimated 40 million casualties caused by the Mongol's conquests, the earth cooled measurably as forests grew in abandoned fields.
But, wait, before you say that no sane environmentalist would advocate killing millions, the article is happy to inform the gullible right-wing reader that yes there are!
The author claims that Erik Pianka, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas wants to do just that, and claims that he advocated an Ebola virus to kill over 90% of humanity.
Just as a quick read of the actual article about Genghis Khan is enough to dispel the idea that he is being hailed as an early environmentalist, a quick internet search dispels the myth, perpetuated by the usual suspects. In their campaign to distort and destroy the positions of both scientists and environmentalists, acting at the beck and call of the fossil fuel industry, statements of Prof. Pianka were taken and distorted. He doesn't actually advocate unleashing a deadly virus on the planet!
His statement in response to these ridiculous accusations is here: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html
The point he is making, one that no one really wants to hear, is this. The human population has gone well beyond any natural limits, and the very structure of our society, with frequent interaction and global travel and commerce, makes the spread of a deadly epidemic all the more likely. Add to it our continuing overuse of antibiotics and the only question is when, not if, an epidemic will occur. We seem unwilling to even acknowledge our population as a problem much less take common-sense steps to head off disaster (and I stress that these steps are all voluntary--no genocide or forced sterilizations involved!). In light of that, nature will eventually move to limit our population through a pandemic (again, facilitated by many aspects of our modern world). It is a dismal warning indeed; no wonder in making it Pianka has been vilified by the very people who recognize no natural limits to human growth!
In sum, both the accusations about the "rehabilitation" of the Great Khan and about Pianka are unfounded, shrill distractions thrown up to disguise the real issues at hand. The usual tactics of the anti-environmentalists in America. When the facts don't tell you what you want to hear, you simply distort and vilify.
http://rightwingnews.com/2011/01/genghis-khan-eco-warrior/
Of course, they selectively quote from the article to try and make it seem that the authors were acting to advocate rather than simply report. In short, the original piece notes that, in a study of climate fluctuations in human history, by far the largest fluctuation before the current era was a period of cooling following the conquests of Genghis Khan, cooling that can be directly related to his actions. Because of the estimated 40 million casualties caused by the Mongol's conquests, the earth cooled measurably as forests grew in abandoned fields.
But, wait, before you say that no sane environmentalist would advocate killing millions, the article is happy to inform the gullible right-wing reader that yes there are!
The author claims that Erik Pianka, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas wants to do just that, and claims that he advocated an Ebola virus to kill over 90% of humanity.
Just as a quick read of the actual article about Genghis Khan is enough to dispel the idea that he is being hailed as an early environmentalist, a quick internet search dispels the myth, perpetuated by the usual suspects. In their campaign to distort and destroy the positions of both scientists and environmentalists, acting at the beck and call of the fossil fuel industry, statements of Prof. Pianka were taken and distorted. He doesn't actually advocate unleashing a deadly virus on the planet!
His statement in response to these ridiculous accusations is here: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html
The point he is making, one that no one really wants to hear, is this. The human population has gone well beyond any natural limits, and the very structure of our society, with frequent interaction and global travel and commerce, makes the spread of a deadly epidemic all the more likely. Add to it our continuing overuse of antibiotics and the only question is when, not if, an epidemic will occur. We seem unwilling to even acknowledge our population as a problem much less take common-sense steps to head off disaster (and I stress that these steps are all voluntary--no genocide or forced sterilizations involved!). In light of that, nature will eventually move to limit our population through a pandemic (again, facilitated by many aspects of our modern world). It is a dismal warning indeed; no wonder in making it Pianka has been vilified by the very people who recognize no natural limits to human growth!
In sum, both the accusations about the "rehabilitation" of the Great Khan and about Pianka are unfounded, shrill distractions thrown up to disguise the real issues at hand. The usual tactics of the anti-environmentalists in America. When the facts don't tell you what you want to hear, you simply distort and vilify.
I'll tell you what, man, the pre-Kahn consumption of fossil fuels and subsequent uber release of greenhouse gasses was getting way out of hand. Thank the almighty for our savior Temujin. Hitler must also have had the right idea; I mean any humanist/evolutionist/environmentalist must agree that killing a few million people is ok in order to better the lives/conditions of the rest, no? [cough]
ReplyDeleteI find this that rather insulting to the readership.