Remarks to the Commonwealth Club Michael Crichton (Theme: Environmentalism is really Urban Atheism)

Michael Crichton ^ | September 15, 2003 | Michael Crichton

[FreedomPoster]

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

[FreedomPoster]

>>>Did Michael Crichton actually read this speech in front of the Commonwealth Club in SAN FRANCISCO?

I expect so, and had the same reaction as you. Seeing that crowd's reaction first-hand would have been *priceless*.

[Bernard Marx]

Bookmark bump.

[cornelis]

I do too. Our difference, however, lies in this: since the acceptance of authority is something distateful to you, you ascribe it to religion. I don't think it is particular to religion. And that is why I included the term secularity and excluded it.

I apologize for imputing such a ludicrious idea to you. If it ain't you, just say so.

[cornelis]

and you excluded it

[PatrickHenry]

Here's Crichton's website.

[arasina]

Did you ever read Airframe? I learned quite a bit about aviation (and the requisite NTSB politics) from that book. Crichton is truly a brilliant man. I've read quite a few of his books once they made it to paperback. Rising Sun is another excellent novel about Japanese multinational economics.

EXCELLENT post!

[rustbucket]

I see your point and thanks. You are correct that much secular thought accepts authority without critical questioning or thinking. Fortunately, however, questioning is a key part of scientific thinking.

[Southack]

Outstandind!

[cornelis]

Fortunately, however, questioning is a key part of scientific thinking

Fortunately, yes. And unfortunately as well, not to forget. Historically we've had a bout with an acute form of this attitude enough to set up chapters of skeptics anonymous. All the -isms, including environmentalism and dogmatism have that penchant for delegitimizing the uncomfortable questions, including the god question. Those familiar with intellectual history since Kant who began his blast against the endless religious dogmatic bickering will see how that reaction ended up making gods out of other things. Step by step, from then to Nietzsche down to Foucault and then landing in the distaste of a two cruel World Wars, we throw out the baby and the bathwater to grasp after an order in the shroud of a purported chaos theory. It's Charlie Chaplin on the moon, and insufficient for political theory.

[Vinnie]

They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view.

Why do I think Democrat when I read this?

I have a dear friend that this describes to a tee.

[Dan Evans]

From reading this it seems that Crichton believes science has no use for religion. However, he's wrong if he thinks that most religious people have no use for science.

[Billthedrill]

BTT for a thoroughly enjoyable read. I have an altered view of Crichton now. And I wish I wrote this well.

[ninenot]

Thanks for the bump. If you want a slightly dated but very useful volume on the topic, check out Elizabeth Whelan (on the Internet) as an author. She blows all the enviro-crap out of the water.

The former Governor of the State of Washington (Dixie Whats-her-name) also put out a decent volume on the topic.

Finally, there's a book called "Rational Readings on the Environment" which is also a useful compendium.

[Dan Evans]

No. Early man was not decadent. They were survivalists in the literal sense. Eat or be eaten. Fight or die. Remember, we evolved just as the rest of life did on this planet.

I think his point is that many early tribes were vicious and decadent and some that were at the other extreme. There were "fierce" tribes and others that learned to get away from and to defend themselves from the more aggressive types.

Western Civilization is the latter type of tribe.

[xm177e2]

And so it runs. Environmentalism is a religion; religions kill people; therefore environmentalism is evil. This one is called guilty by association.

I disagree. He is merely saying that we need a rational environmentalist movement, not one based on myth and faith. He is merely saying that a movement seeking to influence public policy that isn't based on rationality will likely do more harm than good. The key is that environmentalists want to run public policy, they don't just want to tell parishioners what to do, they want to tell all of us what to do.

[cornelis]

xm177e2, if you make rationality the bottom line, you've a religion as good as any.

[Snuffington]

Very good article.

There is no Eden. There never was.

That was one of the major themes of Jurassic Park.

[Samwise]

So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism

Great read. Thanks for posting.

[Dan Evans]

Crichton's comments on primitive man and religion reminded me of this remark from P.J. O'Rourke:

"Greenpeace fund-raisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than tribal wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. 'Oh, no, the Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.' "

[rustbucket]

Fortunately, yes. And unfortunately as well, not to forget.

I don't see as much downside in scientific critical thinking as you do apparently. I don't blame modern wars on such thinking. There were enough attrocities from both sides during the European wars of religion. Then again, this period of 16th and 17th century history could be argued to be the result of people questioning authority and questioning what they'd been taught. However, I think we are all the freer as a result of the efforts and moral courage of those who thought for themselves.

Ah, it has been a long, long time since I struggled through Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, etc. You seem to be arguing like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, "Oh, ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, "Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men."