Is Islamophobia Accelerating Global Warming?

[Virgil Showlion]

"This was a real lecture at MIT on May 9th."



Courtesy of "the Burning Platform":

The Ecology and Justice Forum In Global Studies And Languages Presents: Ghassan Hage

Ghassan Hage is Future Generation Professor in the School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry, University of Melbourne
Introduced By Bettina Stoetzer, Global Studies And Languages
Mon. May 9 5:00 pm 2-105

This talk examines the relation between Islamophobia as the dominant form of racism today and the ecological crisis. It looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked: as an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation. The talk proposes a fourth way of linking the two: an argument that they are both emanating from a similar mode of being, or enmeshment, in the world, what is referred to as ‘generalised domestication.’

Ghassan Hage has held many visting positions across the world including in Harvard, University of Copenhagen, Ecoles des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and American University of Beirut. He works in the comparative anthropology of nationalism, multiculturalism, diaspora and racism and on the relation between anthropology, philosophy and social and political theory.

I know I'm disappointed I missed it. I've never even heard of a "Future Generation Professor", let alone attended a talk given by one.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 16, 2016 9:14:38 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oh my. As I recall from my days at University there were many, many topics bandied about. Some of them were rather.... out there.

I guess maybe the engineers at MIT should stick to engineering?

MIT just happens to be hosting the guy. He's with the University of Melbourne.

Their anthropology department heads should be walking around with paper bags on their heads, although in their defense the guy probably has tenure.

[tallguy]

The only way I could manage to link the two subjects is by thinking that countries such as the U.S. are greatly increasing their own production of fossil fuels to avoid sending money to Islamic countries, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Besides that, I got nothin'.   

Could "Future Generation Professor" mean that it is his job to make sh** up about the future, no matter how implausible now, to try to stimulate discussion?  

[Deleted]

It looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked:

 as an entanglement of two crises,

 metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other


 and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation.

It seems to me like he is going to talk about how Islamophobia and global warming are connected.  Like a compare and contrast.  Is he going to be saying that Islamaphobia accelerates Global warming?  Because that is not what he says in what I quoted.

I broke the sentence up into parts to try to understand what it was saying.

[gregintenn]

Liberal logic.....you gotta love it!

[tallguy]

May 16, 2016 18:22:40 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Liberal logic.....you gotta love it!

I have no idea if this guy is liberal or not.  He appears to be Lebanese living in Australia.  Either way, though, do you REALLY want to open yourself up to examples of Conservative logic? 

[gregintenn]

May 16, 2016 18:28:13 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 16, 2016 18:22:40 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Liberal logic.....you gotta love it!

I have no idea if this guy is liberal or not.  He appears to be Lebanese living in Australia.  Either way, though, do you REALLY want to open yourself up to examples of Conservative logic? 

No shit??!!!??

Somebody call Captain Obvious and have him explain this to tallguy.

Clue #1) Islamophobia
Clue #2) Global Warming
Clue #3) A pitiful attempt to connect these two farces.

[tallguy]

You get the point that he is not American, right?  And doesn't write about here?  Would I guess that he would be closer to the left end of the spectrum than the right?  Yes.  But classifying him according to terminology and definitions in use here could be problematic without knowing more about him. 

Again, though, CONSERVATIVE "logic" is far less logical than liberal logic, which was much more my point. 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 16, 2016 13:34:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The only way I could manage to link the two subjects is by thinking that countries such as the U.S. are greatly increasing their own production of fossil fuels to avoid sending money to Islamic countries, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Besides that, I got nothin'.   

Could "Future Generation Professor" mean that it is his job to make sh** up about the future, no matter how implausible now, to try to stimulate discussion?  

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

I suspect that since studies on Islamophobia don't exactly bring the grant monies rolling in, he threw in global warming to make sure he got a piece of the government pie.

I've never seen it to quite this extreme, but government funding for funding operates on the principle of "target domains", which are only slightly more sophisticated than keywords. The national funding agencies (NSF, NSERC, etc.) look for research that intersects these target domains and rate it more highly when vetting grant applications. This is by design. They're instructed to do this; the government makes no bones about it. Since the cutoff for funding is often decided by fractions of a point, connecting research to one or more target domains in some cases is the only way to have one's work funded.

As a result, we observe a contrived push in the literature to connect research with target domains such as global warming. It's one of the reasons why the "98% consensus" oft-touted by environmental groups is so harshly criticized by conservative voices in academia. Some of that 98% (some suggest the bulk of it) is research that has little or nothing to do with global warming except that it presupposes the correctness of the AGW hypothesis and restates some of its conclusions (usually in the introduction and abstract) in order to include "global warming" in its keywords and abstract, and thus tie itself to something that will get funding.

As I say, I've never seen it to quite this extreme, where the connection is frankly absurd, but I suppose it was bound to happen.

[Deleted]

Maybe his speech is just to answer the question, "nope" then to talk about whatever he wants.

[tallguy]

May 16, 2016 19:12:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 16, 2016 13:34:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The only way I could manage to link the two subjects is by thinking that countries such as the U.S. are greatly increasing their own production of fossil fuels to avoid sending money to Islamic countries, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Besides that, I got nothin'.   

Could "Future Generation Professor" mean that it is his job to make sh** up about the future, no matter how implausible now, to try to stimulate discussion?  

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

I suspect that since studies on Islamophobia don't exactly bring the grant monies rolling in, he threw in global warming to make sure he got a piece of the government pie.

I've never seen it to quite this extreme, but government funding for funding operates on the principle of "target domains", which are only slightly more sophisticated than keywords. The national funding agencies (NSF, NSERC, etc.) look for research that intersects these target domains and rate it more highly when vetting grant applications. This is by design. They're instructed to do this; the government makes no bones about it. Since the cutoff for funding is often decided by fractions of a point, connecting research to one or more target domains in some cases is the only way to have one's work funded.

As a result, we observe a contrived push in the literature to connect research with target domains such as global warming. It's one of the reasons why the "98% consensus" oft-touted by environmental groups is so harshly criticized by conservative voices in academia. Some of that 98% (some suggest the bulk of it) is research that has little or nothing to do with global warming except that it presupposes the correctness of the AGW hypothesis and restates some of its conclusions (usually in the introduction and abstract) in order to include "global warming" in its keywords and abstract, and thus tie itself to something that will get funding.

As I say, I've never seen it to quite this extreme, where the connection is frankly absurd, but I suppose it was bound to happen.

My theory is that, while rising sea levels are real and will cause the destruction of many coastal areas, the true cause is something entirely different from what is currently thought.  It is in actuality the fact that aliens from deep in our galaxy are building massive domed cities under the sea, and the displaced water is causing the sea level to rise.  Our current technology (radar and sonar) is not capable of detecting them so they can enter our atmosphere and then the seas unnoticed.  Their technology is not exactly the same as the Romulan cloaking device, but that description should be sufficiently understandable to the average person.  It will require massive amounts of money to build new systems that will be able to not only detect but defend against them. 

You think I can get that funded?  And you know I'll need engineers and scientists to work on the project if you're interested....    

[dondub]

It has been determined that Future Generations Professor Ghassan Hage should be completely ignored.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 16, 2016 19:43:30 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 16, 2016 19:12:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

I suspect that since studies on Islamophobia don't exactly bring the grant monies rolling in, he threw in global warming to make sure he got a piece of the government pie.

I've never seen it to quite this extreme, but government funding for funding operates on the principle of "target domains", which are only slightly more sophisticated than keywords. The national funding agencies (NSF, NSERC, etc.) look for research that intersects these target domains and rate it more highly when vetting grant applications. This is by design. They're instructed to do this; the government makes no bones about it. Since the cutoff for funding is often decided by fractions of a point, connecting research to one or more target domains in some cases is the only way to have one's work funded.

As a result, we observe a contrived push in the literature to connect research with target domains such as global warming. It's one of the reasons why the "98% consensus" oft-touted by environmental groups is so harshly criticized by conservative voices in academia. Some of that 98% (some suggest the bulk of it) is research that has little or nothing to do with global warming except that it presupposes the correctness of the AGW hypothesis and restates some of its conclusions (usually in the introduction and abstract) in order to include "global warming" in its keywords and abstract, and thus tie itself to something that will get funding.

As I say, I've never seen it to quite this extreme, where the connection is frankly absurd, but I suppose it was bound to happen.

My theory is that, while rising sea levels are real and will cause the destruction of many coastal areas, the true cause is something entirely different from what is currently thought.  It is in actuality the fact that aliens from deep in our galaxy are building massive domed cities under the sea, and the displaced water is causing the sea level to rise.  Our current technology (radar and sonar) is not capable of detecting them so they can enter our atmosphere and then the seas unnoticed.  Their technology is not exactly the same as the Romulan cloaking device, but that description should be sufficiently understandable to the average person.  It will require massive amounts of money to build new systems that will be able to not only detect but defend against them. 

You think I can get that funded?  And you know I'll need engineers and scientists to work on the project if you're interested....    

If you can make it so that consolidation of the world's resources and supranational government is absolutely necessary to solve the problem, you'd have a decent shot at it.

Anything that talks about addressing the problem in a decentralized way (e.g. fortifying coastal areas, market-based solutions to green energy tech, carbon capture and sequestration, etc.) doesn't have a goat's chance in a snow leopard cage of being funded.

[tallguy]

May 16, 2016 21:21:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 16, 2016 19:43:30 GMT -5 tallguy said:

My theory is that, while rising sea levels are real and will cause the destruction of many coastal areas, the true cause is something entirely different from what is currently thought.  It is in actuality the fact that aliens from deep in our galaxy are building massive domed cities under the sea, and the displaced water is causing the sea level to rise.  Our current technology (radar and sonar) is not capable of detecting them so they can enter our atmosphere and then the seas unnoticed.  Their technology is not exactly the same as the Romulan cloaking device, but that description should be sufficiently understandable to the average person.  It will require massive amounts of money to build new systems that will be able to not only detect but defend against them. 

You think I can get that funded?  And you know I'll need engineers and scientists to work on the project if you're interested....    

If you can make it so that consolidation of the world's resources and supranational government is absolutely necessary to solve the problem, you'd have a decent shot at it.

Anything that talks about addressing the problem in a decentralized way (e.g. fortifying coastal areas, market-based solutions to green energy tech, carbon capture and sequestration, etc.) doesn't have a goat's chance in a snow leopard cage of being funded.

I thought that part was obvious.  Because the oceans dominate the surface area of the earth, it would be impossible both politically and logistically for one country to be in charge.  And no country could mount such a massive effort on their own.  What I most need now is a name that can be turned into a really catchy acronym to get people and countries involved.  Society To Prevent International Destruction (STPID) isn't quite it.  I'll work on it though.    

[tallguy]

May 17, 2016 5:52:28 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

You're close though.

How about Society To Ultimately Prevent International Destruction? (STUPID)

Congress ought to be able to understand that. 

  That was part of the joke.

And I was leaning toward "Universally" myself. 

[mmhmm]

May 17, 2016 9:03:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 17, 2016 5:52:28 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

You're close though.

How about Society To Ultimately Prevent International Destruction? (STUPID)

Congress ought to be able to understand that. 

  That was part of the joke.

And I was leaning toward "Universally" myself. 

LOL! I had "Unilaterally" in mind. Seemed to fit with the idea of gross stupidity. 

[tallguy]

May 17, 2016 10:02:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 17, 2016 9:03:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

  That was part of the joke.

And I was leaning toward "Universally" myself. 

LOL! I had "Unilaterally" in mind. Seemed to fit with the idea of gross stupidity. 

No, Unilaterally wouldn't work.  Had to tie in to the One-World theme from earlier.   

[djAdvocate]

yeah.  there are lots of good U words.  and it DID make the joke funnier.

[mmhmm]

May 17, 2016 10:09:32 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 17, 2016 10:02:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL! I had "Unilaterally" in mind. Seemed to fit with the idea of gross stupidity. 

No, Unilaterally wouldn't work.  Had to tie in to the One-World theme from earlier.   

Mais non! The "society" being discussed has the delusional idea they're able to unilaterally direct the world to behave as the "society" deems proper. Ergo, my choice.

[happyhoix]

Future Generation Professor in the School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry

When I saw what his expertise is, I stopped paying attention.

There is so much noise out there about Global warming from every group with an axe to grind I skip over the stuff written by political talking heads, organizations formed from one segment of industry or from a social action group, inventors selling magic non polluting machines, wizards, religious pundits,  hacks, and college professors lecturing far outside their realm of study.

My guess is this guy is promoting racial tolerance, which is not, in itself, a bad thing, but he should stick to topics like 'Why Islamaphobia is Bad." Plenty to work with on that topic.

I like the cute little white thing  (anime polar bear??) he should keep that on his poster....

[gregintenn]

May 17, 2016 14:56:15 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Future Generation Professor in the School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry

When I saw what his expertise is, I stopped paying attention.

There is so much noise out there about Global warming from every group with an axe to grind I skip over the stuff written by political talking heads, organizations formed from one segment of industry or from a social action group, inventors selling magic non polluting machines, wizards, religious pundits,  hacks, and college professors lecturing far outside their realm of study.

My guess is this guy is promoting racial tolerance, which is not, in itself, a bad thing, but he should stick to topics like 'Why Islamaphobia is Bad." Plenty to work with on that topic.

I like the cute little white thing  (anime polar bear??) he should keep that on his poster....

You mean Al Gore?

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times....I'm fairly certain Islam isn't a race.

[happyhoix]

May 17, 2016 15:59:32 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

May 17, 2016 14:56:15 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

When I saw what his expertise is, I stopped paying attention.

There is so much noise out there about Global warming from every group with an axe to grind I skip over the stuff written by political talking heads, organizations formed from one segment of industry or from a social action group, inventors selling magic non polluting machines, wizards, religious pundits,  hacks, and college professors lecturing far outside their realm of study.

My guess is this guy is promoting racial tolerance, which is not, in itself, a bad thing, but he should stick to topics like 'Why Islamaphobia is Bad." Plenty to work with on that topic.

I like the cute little white thing  (anime polar bear??) he should keep that on his poster....

You mean Al Gore?

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times....I'm fairly certain Islam isn't a race.

You're right, Greg. I should have said 'religious bigotry.'

[formerroomate99]

I've heard it said that climate change is contributing to the instability in the middle east and Africa.  For example, a few years of droughts have forced a lot of Syrian farmers off their land and into cities where they have trouble getting jobs.  But I find it hard to believe that Americans would care more about global warming if the people in that area were Buddhists.  Americans are very attached to their big cars and big houses and not too terribly concerned about what happens in the rest of the world.  

I've often wondered why environmentalists didn't make the isolationist argument for moving away from fossil fuels after 9/11.  It seemed like a no brainer to me.  

[Virgil Showlion]

May 19, 2016 22:42:56 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

I've heard it said that climate change is contributing to the instability in the middle east and Africa.  For example, a few years of droughts have forced a lot of Syrian farmers off their land and into cities where they have trouble getting jobs.  But I find it hard to believe that Americans would care more about global warming if the people in that area were Buddhists.  Americans are very attached to their big cars and big houses and not too terribly concerned about what happens in the rest of the world.  

I've often wondered why environmentalists didn't make the isolationist argument for moving away from fossil fuels after 9/11.  It seemed like a no brainer to me.  

Climate change contributing to instability in Africa, I can believe. Islamophobia contributing to climate change, not so much.

[gregintenn]

May 18, 2016 6:35:40 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 17, 2016 15:59:32 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

You mean Al Gore?

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times....I'm fairly certain Islam isn't a race.

You're right, Greg. I should have said 'religious bigotry.'

Many here routinely slam Christianity and no one bats an eye. Let someone question Islamic beliefs and all hell breaks loose. Is this not hypocrisy?

[happyhoix]

May 20, 2016 7:40:40 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

May 18, 2016 6:35:40 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

You're right, Greg. I should have said 'religious bigotry.'

Many here routinely slam Christianity and no one bats an eye. Let someone question Islamic beliefs and all hell breaks loose. Is this not hypocrisy?

Who on this thread slammed Christianity? No one even mentioned Christianity at all.

A review of this thread pretty much shows 100% of the posters think this professor is an idiot for trying to link Islamophobia with global warming.

Many posters routinely find offense where no offense is intended, I think.

[gregintenn]

May 20, 2016 7:57:57 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 20, 2016 7:40:40 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Many here routinely slam Christianity and no one bats an eye. Let someone question Islamic beliefs and all hell breaks loose. Is this not hypocrisy?

Who on this thread slammed Christianity? No one even mentioned Christianity at all.

A review of this thread pretty much shows 100% of the posters think this professor is an idiot for trying to link Islamophobia with global warming.

Many posters routinely find offense where no offense is intended, I think.

Not in this thread, but it is common on this forum. I quoted you because your post brought this to mind. It wasn't aimed at you in particular.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 16, 2016 8:49:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"This was a real lecture at MIT on May 9th."



Courtesy of "the Burning Platform":

The Ecology and Justice Forum In Global Studies And Languages Presents: Ghassan Hage

Ghassan Hage is Future Generation Professor in the School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry, University of Melbourne
Introduced By Bettina Stoetzer, Global Studies And Languages
Mon. May 9 5:00 pm 2-105

This talk examines the relation between Islamophobia as the dominant form of racism today and the ecological crisis. It looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked: as an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation. The talk proposes a fourth way of linking the two: an argument that they are both emanating from a similar mode of being, or enmeshment, in the world, what is referred to as ‘generalised domestication.’

Ghassan Hage has held many visting positions across the world including in Harvard, University of Copenhagen, Ecoles des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and American University of Beirut. He works in the comparative anthropology of nationalism, multiculturalism, diaspora and racism and on the relation between anthropology, philosophy and social and political theory.

I know I'm disappointed I missed it. I've never even heard of a "Future Generation Professor", let alone attended a talk given by one.

The Left: Mainstreaming Insanity To Justify Theft

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2016 11:22:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 16, 2016 8:49:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"This was a real lecture at MIT on May 9th."



Courtesy of "the Burning Platform":

The Ecology and Justice Forum In Global Studies And Languages Presents: Ghassan Hage

Ghassan Hage is Future Generation Professor in the School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry, University of Melbourne
Introduced By Bettina Stoetzer, Global Studies And Languages
Mon. May 9 5:00 pm 2-105

This talk examines the relation between Islamophobia as the dominant form of racism today and the ecological crisis. It looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked: as an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation. The talk proposes a fourth way of linking the two: an argument that they are both emanating from a similar mode of being, or enmeshment, in the world, what is referred to as ‘generalised domestication.’

Ghassan Hage has held many visting positions across the world including in Harvard, University of Copenhagen, Ecoles des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and American University of Beirut. He works in the comparative anthropology of nationalism, multiculturalism, diaspora and racism and on the relation between anthropology, philosophy and social and political theory.

I know I'm disappointed I missed it. I've never even heard of a "Future Generation Professor", let alone attended a talk given by one.

The Left: Mainstreaming Insanity To Justify Theft

fear has been used to motivate the US public since the 50's, Paul.  "The Left" does it with taxes, revenue issues, and public service issues.  "The Right" does it with war, public security, and "constitutional rights" issues.  if you and others keep pretending that "The Left" is the problem, you are going to miss the threat that is coming from "The Right".

[formerroomate99]

May 19, 2016 23:05:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 19, 2016 22:42:56 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

I've heard it said that climate change is contributing to the instability in the middle east and Africa.  For example, a few years of droughts have forced a lot of Syrian farmers off their land and into cities where they have trouble getting jobs.  But I find it hard to believe that Americans would care more about global warming if the people in that area were Buddhists.  Americans are very attached to their big cars and big houses and not too terribly concerned about what happens in the rest of the world.  

I've often wondered why environmentalists didn't make the isolationist argument for moving away from fossil fuels after 9/11.  It seemed like a no brainer to me.  

Climate change contributing to instability in Africa, I can believe. Islamophobia contributing to climate change, not so much.

Bingo.  Climate change was happening long before 9/11, even before the PLO started kidnapping people.  But you have to remember, that in many parts of the world, America gets blamed for everything.