31 replies to this topic

[moobie]

It's blatantly obvious; you'd miss it only if you read things purely literally.

It'd be like having a expose on the Holocaust and only talking about how many pet dogs were trampled by convoys carrying Jews to gas chambers. The whole point is to dehumanize the victims of the Mongols, to weigh their lives against inanimate objects and plants, and thus subtly imply that they're subhuman.

Edited by moobie, 13 June 2011 - 03:44 PM.

[mohistManiac]

While I can predict this kind of research annoys people that consider it kind of circus act to gain attention it's nevertheless a kind of legitamit research. The facts would come from something that had happened in reality and when they give way to another phenomenon people are entitled to make theories and put them to the test. Being the "greenest" doesn't make sense though and I doubt the article was doing anything more than trivializing the actual terms of the research into something that is considered cool and hip these days which is the coming green revolution. So the right research but with inadequate context has negative sorts of implication in dumbing down historical information as Tibetlibre likes to demonstrate.

[mariusj]

It's blatantly obvious; you'd miss it only if you read things purely literally.

It'd be like having a expose on the Holocaust and only talking about how many pet dogs were trampled by convoys carrying Jews to gas chambers. The whole point is to dehumanize the victims of the Mongols, to weigh their lives against inanimate objects and plants, and thus subtly imply that they're subhuman.

What you said is TRUE to a certain point, but I did not read that from this specific paper.

But lets just argue for the sake of argument, and GIVEN what you said were true, then that means the paper intend to dehumanize EVERYONE the mongols have slaughtered, as it was quite clear in how much population the mongols devastated from the Yellow Sea to Central Asia. Then the paper is NOT about how it is OK to slaughter Han woman and children, but rather, how it was OK to slaughter man, woman, and children of every ethnicity that the Mongols come in contact with.

So if what you read is true, and I am not agreeing with you, then its not about Han woman and children, but rather a entire subgroup of human or several subgroup of human.

Oh, and when you do accuse someone of genocidal content, or scholarly act of condoning genocidal acts, your should really point out what made it condoning instead of condemning.

Now I will point out a few word that emphasis on his acts from the article.

Genghis Khan, who established the world's largest contiguous empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, has been branded the “greenest invader” in history as his murderous invasion actually helped scrub about 700 million ton of carbon from the atmosphere.
According to a new research, the ruthless Mongol warrior killed so many people during his bloody invasions that huge swathes of cultivated land depopulated and returned to forest.

Nearly 40 million people were believed to be killed in Mongol invasions which led to an empire that spanned 22 per cent of the Earth's surface. This resulted in huge cultivated land becoming forests again, absorbing an estimated 700 million ton of carbon from the atmosphere, found the research by the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.

Though his methods may be difficult for environmentalists to stomach, ecologists believe it may be the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.

“It's a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era,” said lead researcher Dr Julia Pongratz.

“Actually, humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth's landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture,” Dr Pongratz was quoted as saying by the Daily Mail.

The 700 million ton of carbon is equivalent to the quantity produced in a year from the global use of petrol. The Carnegie study measured the carbon impact of a number of historical events that involved a large number of deaths.

Time periods also looked at included the Black Death in Europe, the fall of China's Ming Dynasty and the conquest of the Americas. All of these events share a widespread return of forests after a period of massive depopulation. But the bloody Mongol invasion immediately stood out for its longevity.

And this is how Khan, who repeatedly wiped out entire settlements, was able to scrub more carbon from the atmosphere than any other despot, the researchers said.

Dr Pongratz explained: “We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn't enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil.

“But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion... there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon.”

Though the Khan will remain known as Genghis the Destroyer and not Genghis the Green, Dr Pongratz hopes that her research will lead to future historians examining environmental impact as well as the more traditional aspects of study.

So please tell me where does it condone the act of killing 40 million people.

Edited by mariusj, 13 June 2011 - 08:53 PM.

[mariusj]

I think people are REALLY missing the point.

I think many people might not have experience reading papers like this? You have to separate what the researcher said, from the writer of this article, which attempts to explain the background for those who do not know.

Let me simply.

Hypothesis: did human impact the climate beginning with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era? Also, can there be man made cooling?

Events: Mongol's bloody invasion is the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.

Results: Humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth's landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture.


Stop bringing politics into science, please. Read science paper as a science paper, criticize its flaws IN SCIENCE - is it a faulty paper, has it been founded on faulty assumptions? was its statistical analysis shotty? and did the author try to bring non-science related materials into his paper?

Edited by mariusj, 13 June 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[Loong]

Get your point.

Maybe the title can be worded as "Impact of war/genocide/population decrease on environment - A Historical Review" instead. This may put more emphasis on the science and less on morality.

I feel that the term "environmentalist" is currently use to denote a positive traits based on a person's action. The negativity and the term environmentalist may contradict each other. At some point, readers personally made a link (maybe not the author's intent) that the genocide is rewarded with an environmentalist title, which spurn the moral outcry.

[mariusj]

A green murder?

[moobie]

mohistManiac

it kind of circus act to gain attention it's nevertheless a kind of legitamit research.

Pandering is indisputably immoral- that it serves one party's interests is irrelevant, imo. Goebbels used sensationalism and nationalism to boost his status as well.

marius

Then the paper is NOT about how it is OK to slaughter Han woman and children, but rather, how it was OK to slaughter man, woman, and children of every ethnicity that the Mongols come in contact with.

True, but given that 1) China suffered the most 2) China was the biggest "eco-villain" of the time (and labeled as one now by hypocritical Westerners) the "targeting" is very obvious. Not to mention that Westerners have had China in their crosshairs for decades.

Now I will point out a few word that emphasis on his acts from the article.

These are obligatory additions. I, too, can c**p out the thesaurus entry for "too bad so sad". Even the Nazis pretended they had high-minded, humanitarian interests and showed propaganda films of the joys of concentration camp life. It's a cynical, calculated play on the emotions of the audience- now I won't accuse these specific scientists and "journalists" of being quite on the same level of Goebbels, but they do it with the sort of fake non-partisanship and "progressive" gloss that the heinous Western media is accustomed to. The nature of the modern West's anti-Chinese and specifically anti-Han racial propaganda takes those two tactics (faux progressive/humanitarian angle, fake anti-partisanship) combined with a high saturation approach laden with subliminal or implicit cues. I would not be surprised to see the total bill for anti-Han racial propaganda in the West reaching the tens of billions of USD figure, if you include revisionism, media wars, smear campaigns, and "scientific" propaganda targeted against Chinese history, culture, economy, government and the entire "Asian" race as a whole.

Also, can there be man made cooling?

The answer is an obvious yes assuming they have the data to prove that plant growth cools the earth.

Edited by moobie, 14 June 2011 - 12:20 AM.

[mariusj]

The answer is an obvious yes assuming they have the data to prove that plant growth cools the earth.

So you didn't read the paper.

There are always emissions, and absorption; just more often than not absorption is lesser than the rate of emissions.

Like the paper said, by merely cutting down trees to make land for farms, it increase emissions simply [and perhaps more] by decreasing absorption. In order for something to cool, obs > emi, which wasn't the case till Genghis Khan killed so many people and left so many land uninhabited that obs actually became greater than emi.

True, but given that 1) China suffered the most 2) China was the biggest "eco-villain" of the time (and labeled as one now by hypocritical Westerners) the "targeting" is very obvious. Not to mention that Westerners have had China in their crosshairs for decades.

. . . .
1)
China didn't suffer the most. China survived. There are many who extinct. I dare you to find a mathematicians who will tell you null is greater than some integers.

2)
In order to go from undeveloped to developed, its a necessary step. You like to generalize a lot. So because some eco people say certain things [and they are not hypocritical because they criticize the west FAR greater than the east due to their capability] does not make it the 'west.'

These are obligatory additions. I, too, can c**p out the thesaurus entry for "too bad so sad". Even the Nazis pretended they had high-minded, humanitarian interests and showed propaganda films of the joys of concentration camp life. It's a cynical, calculated play on the emotions of the audience- now I won't accuse these specific scientists and "journalists" of being quite on the same level of Goebbels, but they do it with the sort of fake non-partisanship and "progressive" gloss that the heinous Western media is accustomed to. The nature of the modern West's anti-Chinese and specifically anti-Han racial propaganda takes those two tactics (faux progressive/humanitarian angle, fake anti-partisanship) combined with a high saturation approach laden with subliminal or implicit cues. I would not be surprised to see the total bill for anti-Han racial propaganda in the West reaching the tens of billions figure, if you include revisionism, media wars, smear campaigns, and "scientific" propaganda.

So like I said, you based your judgment NOT from the actual content, NOR the inference from the actual content, but rather a belief that someone is harboring some agenda.

I rest my point.

[moobie]

Like the paper said, by merely cutting down trees to make land for farms, it increase emissions simply [and perhaps more] by decreasing absorption.

Any third grader could arrive at these conclusions *without* examining the historical record.

1)
China didn't suffer the most. China survived. There are many who extinct. I dare you to find a mathematicians who will tell you null is greater than some integers.

So you're saying you're one of *those* people who think murdering 100 Chinese people is not as bad as killing one Euro or Jew. Point proven.

2)In order to go from undeveloped to developed, its a necessary step. You like to generalize a lot. So because some eco people say certain things [and they are not hypocritical because they criticize the west FAR greater than the east due to their capability] does not make it the 'west.'

No, in fact the West's pig-disgusting media AND their politicians (elected 'representatives') mind you used the biggest "climate summit" of these past years as nothing more than a smear campaign and hate-fest directed at China, and other developing countries to a lesser extent. All of the prominent eco-tsars did so.

So like I said, you based your judgment NOT from the actual content, NOR the inference from the actual content, but rather a belief that someone is harboring some agenda.

I rest my point.

See my second point on how effective the brainwashing is.

[jamjoh]

Something to remember. Scientists write things in literal terms only. If a scientist doesn't say something, s/he doesn't intend someone to infer it.

I believe the point of the paper was to answer those who have been saying that no matter what we do we cannot affect global warming. The paper's point, in my opinion is to state that human activity does have an impact and we can make changes. The article is very clear that it is the reforestation that causes the positive impact to the environment. It does not say that the only way to accomplish this is by killing millions.

[mariusj]

Any third grader could arrive at these conclusions *without* examining the historical record.

To arrive at this conclusion, you must first understand the rate in which we produce and the rate in which we digest.

You obviously didn't arrive at this conclusion because arriving at a conclusion involves thinking.

So you're saying you're one of *those* people who think murdering 100 Chinese people is not as bad as killing one Euro or Jew. Point proven.

LOL.
Or you arrive at a conclusion prior to any information was given. Because you assumed.
Either way, how devastated a population is depends on the ratio. You are saying Chinese people were affected, and I am saying there are other people who are extinct. I am not sure how to drill the point of extinct in your mind.

An army who lost 1million lose nothing if its 1 trillion strong. An army who lost 100 loses everything if it has 100 man. If we are talking about DEGREE of destruction, I am pretty sure no one will agree with you, but what do you care?

No, in fact the West's pig-disgusting media AND their politicians (elected 'representatives') mind you used the biggest "climate summit" of these past years as nothing more than a smear campaign and hate-fest directed at China, and other developing countries to a lesser extent. All of the prominent eco-tsars did so.

Your ability to exaggerate rivals Barca's ability to convince referees, and for that I applaud you. Have you thought of becoming a director? I am sure Hollywood, [ no, you wouldn't want to work for someone who is political driven, China hating, etc etc like the Hollywood] or some movie industries would love to have you.


I do second you on how effective the brainwashing is. Just look at you. You jump to a hundred conclusion without even bother asking questions. You either know everything, making you effective divine, or....

[moobie]

An army who lost 1million lose nothing if its 1 trillion strong. An army who lost 100 loses everything if it has 100 man. If we are talking about DEGREE of destruction, I am pretty sure no one will agree with you, but what do you care?

Look at my quote. We were talking about who suffered most, not your relativistic bean-counting. You fail to grasp the basic point, which is that human suffering is neither subjective nor relativistic. Each and every one of the victims suffered as a full human does, but nice try at moving the goal posts. If you think the "cultural continuity" of a group of people regardless of how large or small is what determines how significant the pain or loss of each individual member is then your thinking is beyond defective.

Again, my point stands- you sound like one of those people who think the Holocaust was the worst event in history because apparently the lives of 6 million Jews is worth more than the lives of 12+ million Russians, simply because there are more Russians. Brainwashed.

I do second you on how effective the brainwashing is. Just look at you. You jump to a hundred conclusion without even bother asking questions. You either know everything, making you effective divine, or....

Laughable, I am self-taught as far as everything discussed here is concerned. The only one jumping to conclusions is you - you're inured to propaganda so you see everything with a rose tint or from behind blinders, not even bothering to question the true message of an article. Critical analysis is a good thing.

Edited by moobie, 15 June 2011 - 05:25 PM.

[jamjoh]

When I get the hang of quoting other people this will be much easier.

Moobie, there were over 8,000,000 Germans killed in WWII, their lives where worth something too.

The holocaust is about genocide. Yes more Russians died, in fact almost 20% of the population died (closer to 25,000,000 not 12,000,000). Over 60% of Jews were killed. And they weren't just killed but tortured first, and experimented on, their children were murder in front of them. They suffered horribly on a daily basis. This isn't an issue of whose life is worth more, it is the attempt at erasing an entire culture in the most sadistic way possible.

[mariusj]

Look at my quote. We were talking about who suffered most, not your relativistic bean-counting. You fail to grasp the basic point, which is that human suffering is neither subjective nor relativistic. Each and every one of the victims suffered as a full human does, but nice try at moving the goal posts. If you think the "cultural continuity" of a group of people regardless of how large or small is what determines how significant the pain or loss of each individual member is then your thinking is beyond defective.

I did. Did you?

Look at your quotes.
You said

True, but given that 1) China suffered the most

So what are we talking about? Are we talking about every individual who suffered, if indeed that is what we are talking about then EVERYONE who died suffered EQUALLY.
Or did you forget you just said 'every one of the victims suffered as a full human does.' If that is indeed true, then a man in Iran suffered as much as a man in China if they were to suffer the same fate.
YET you suggested that China suffered more because more of their man and woman died.

So, are we talking about the aggregate of a civilization, thus the word 'China' seem to come into play quite often, or are we talking in humanitarian view point, which China should not of come into play?

Stop contradicting yourself.

Again, my point stands- you sound like one of those people who think the Holocaust was the worst event in history because apparently the lives of 6 million Jews is worth more than the lives of 12+ million Russians, simply because there are more Russians. Brainwashed.

Did I not say you jump to conclusion without ANY EVIDENCE?
I did, didn't I. Man I must read minds.

You came to the conclusion that I believe Holocaust is the worst event, from what? Your point stands how? You jump to conclusion the way I use the word 'the.'

Laughable, I am self-taught as far as everything discussed here is concerned. The only one jumping to conclusions is you - you're inured to propaganda so you see everything with a rose tint or from behind blinders, not even bothering to question the true message of an article. Critical analysis is a good thing.

My critical analysis lead me to actually understand what the author was trying to say, that there was an aggregate man made cooling.

Apparently your critical analysis led you to think the author is saying it is ok to kill millions of Han people. And I think Holocaust is the worst event in the history of mankind.

And we are way off topic. So I am stopping here.

[moobie]

When I get the hang of quoting other people this will be much easier.

Moobie, there were over 8,000,000 Germans killed in WWII, their lives where worth something too.

Collateral damage, as far as I'm concerned.

Over 60% of Jews were killed. And they weren't just killed but tortured first, and experimented on, their children were murder in front of them. They suffered horribly on a daily basis. This isn't an issue of whose life is worth more, it is the attempt at erasing an entire culture in the most sadistic way possible.

The Jews weren't the only ones tortured or experimented on, (innocent) people dying is people dying imo.

humanitarian view point, which China should not of come into play

Nice try with the semantics. I could use an interchangeable "Chinese" but it's blatantly obvious. I'm not a bean-counter or a sophist.

I am stopping here.

Stopping because you ran out of room to backtrack I guess.