The nature of the Universe... and of Nature

Sometimes I think I can't write about current events without being pissed off. I could be writing about how Curt Schilling obviously isn't as much of a total dick as I thought he was and is pledging housing to a family of 9 who were run out of New Orleans by Katrina for a year. I could be writing about a hell of a lot of things. But what is running through my mind right now is all this backlash against anyone who mentions global warming. From what I can tell, its centered around the idea that anything and everything that happens in the weather is solely the action of "Mother Nature"

The idea of "Mother Nature" as a unified force is every bit as ridiculous as the "Invisible Hand" in economics and whichever god is running the show in Creationism and "Intelligent Design"

The truth of the matter is that every single thing that exists on this planet (and indeed, in this Universe) has an effect on every other thing. (As demonstrated by the butterfly example.) Its just a matter of how much of an effect.

There are only two things with a greater effect on planet Earth than human beings; the Sun and the Moon. Deny it. Try.

Is it really that far-fetched to think that we could have an effect on the nature of the biosphere? On the weather?

And you know what? Even if Global Warming is just the fantasy of some left wing nutcase who'd burned one two many, we still have a serious problem with frivilous consumption in this country that is making the gap between the rich and the poor grow steadily wider even if it isn't fucking with the weather.

Laissez-Faire economics is a fallacy because the idea of leaving anything alone is against the fundamental laws of the Universe (see above)

The point is, we Americans just need to cold fix our shit, because we're already starting to fade.

But there is hope. Because as I alluded to before the Universe is fundamentally interconnected (such is the logical conclusion to be reached in the study of everything we know about its nature). If we start to move in the right direction, it will become easier to follow the path.


  1. You don't like Curt Schilling? I honestly can't say anything bad about anyone who played for the 2004 Red Sox. But then I waited a lot longer than you did.

  2. Even the ones who play for the Yankees now...although I certainly don't want them to play very well. Given that it's Bellhorn and Embree, probably no real danger of that although Mark did hit a homerun the other night.

  3. Well I am of course eternally grateful for everyone on the team, but I just don't care for Schilling as a person. I mean I can't have any problem with him as a baseball player after what he did last year... I just get this sort of bad vibe from him. The same that I got from Manny until 2003, though for a different reason. I dunno. Alls I'm saying is that while I'm glad he's with us he's the last guy on the Sox I'd want to hang out with.

  4. I see your point. I personally don't think I would enjoy Keith Foulke's company but I'm sure he's a fine human being. Curt is a bombastic egomaniac but then maybe you'd have to be to do what he did.

    As to global warming, hmmm..it's fun to make fun of something that is supposed to be addressed by a treaty (Kyoto) that exempts the biggest polluters of all, e.g., India, China, etc. I haven't been to either country (Superkate probably has) but I understand they are not healthy places to live with lots of smog and pollution.

    I think it's one of those theories that can be invoked by either side in support of some proposition which ultimately cannot be proven or disproven. Kind of like my father who for many years believed that the "fix was in" and that is why the Red Sox could never win the World Series. Seriously.

  5. well that doesn't sound too far-fetched when you look at the fact that there was a fix on the World Series immedeately after the last one we'd won, when you look at like the theory about Babe Ruth's cursed grand piano at the bottom of that lake.

    As for not being able to prove it one way or the other, there is a way to prove it. If we stop putting so much poison in the air and nothing changes, then the theory was false. If the waters cool back down, then it was true. Either way we get cleaner air out of it.

    I agree with you about the treaty though. The major problem is that it was drafted by politicians, without nearly enough input from the scientific community. It needed to set up a program so that developing nations can get financial aid in conforming to the guidelines, which is really the only way India and China would be able to get up to snuff. Still, it was a step in the right direction that we decided not to take.

  6. Not being familiar with who owns what as far as sports teams, I can't comment in that regard. I do however know that there is global warming and it is already hurting us. HA HA You did tend to get off topic wombat. I give you and A for effort and a C for not following directions.

  7. I just never understood why it was easier for him to believe that the game was rigged against the Sox than to accept that the players just came up short (over and over and over). I have to say though that I did join his camp after 1986, for a little while at least. But now I'm free.

    I have to say that I care more about the Red Sox than I do anything else, politics, world events, it doesn't matter. So let the globe heat right up as long as the Sox win. Which they did tonight.

    You may call me shallow. But to that I say "to thine ownself be true"...and I love the Boston Red Sox. Especially when they win.

  8. When do you go back to school? Or have you already?

  9. Alice: heh. yeah. I get that a lot. But there's a reason this post is cluttering up my blog and not yours. =P

    Saije: Oh, there's a whole post in answering that question, and I'll get to it, I swear.