ARMAGEDDON

TODD MAY—There are stirrings of discussion these days in philosophical circles about the prospect of human extinction. This should not be surprising, given the increasingly threatening predations of climate change. In reflecting on this question, I want to suggest an answer to a single question, one that hardly covers the whole philosophical territory but is an important aspect of it. Would human extinction be a tragedy?

ERIC ZUESSE—Like many traditionalists, that observer refuses to consider that the royal Saud family might be dominant over the Jewish billionaires, instead of vice-versa such as is the case because the Sauds control the exchange-rate of the dollar and the Jewish billionaires don’t even control much oil at all. But that’s a relatively minor disagreement, in the present context.

Our biosphere has been punctured by an amoral system of industrialism, taken to sociopathic levels by US-led capitalism. The American population, long indoctrinated in all-out irresponsible consumerism, addicted to cheap, infantile escapism, and anesthesized to the need for urgent mobilization and changes in their sacrosanct way of life, have played a nefarious role in enabling America’s malignant leadership to derail world efforts to coordinate an appropriate and timely response.

RUSSELL BENTLEY—Scott Peck, the brilliant psychiatrist and theologian, wrote a book, People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil, in which he gave several excellent definitions of what evil really is. The first and most concise is simply “militant ignorance”. Think about that for a moment, let it sink in. And ask yourself if there is a better, more all encompassing description than that for the USA in the 21st Century. It is the definition of evil.

PETER SYMONDS—The growing danger of a nuclear conflict between the US and China was the subject of an article in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs entitled “Beijing’s nuclear option: Why a US-Chinese war could spiral out of control.” Analyst Caitlin Talmadge concluded that any US conventional conflict would necessarily threaten China’s relatively small nuclear arsenal.

If that were the case, the Chinese military would be confronted with the choice of using its nuclear weapons or losing its ability to retaliate against a US nuclear attack. Talmadge dismissed the Pentagon’s routine assurances that there was no likelihood of a nuclear war between the US and China.