Do You See What He Did There?

I am reading Niall Ferguson’s latest, Civilization, for Al Jazeera at the moment. Thought I would flag up something interesting along the way.

In chapter 4 Ferguson discusses the relationship between imperialism and science and includes some fairly sensible remarks on the origins of Francis Galton’s pseudo-science of eugenics. He goes on to emphasize the widespread acceptance of loony claims about human evolution, racial hierarchy and the rest:

The crucial point to note is that a hundred years ago work like Galton’s was at the cutting edge of science. Racism was not some backward-looking reactionary ideology; the scientifically uneducated embraced it as enthusiastically as people today accept the theory of man-made global warming.

(Niall Ferguson Civilization: The West and the Rest, London, 2011, p.177)

Ferguson seems to be suggesting that the science of climate change is a piece of appealing crankery that will one day go the same way as eugenics.

There are plenty of pseudo-scientific ideas out there that the scientifically uneducated do embrace, ideas about efficient markets, say – something that is crying out for Ferguson’s mordant revisionism surely. And modern medicine – one of Ferguson’s killer apps – also has its fair share of well-funded myths.

At any rate, perhaps the author should make it clear that he doesn’t think that the scientists of International Panel on Climate Change are the modern day equivalents of Francis Galton.

After all, those who are concerned about the possibility of catastrophic climate change aren’t exactly like the enthusiastic sterilizers, lobotomists and mass murders who went along with Galton’s brand of batshittery.

UPDATE, 24.4.11: I’ve finished the book now and Ferguson later comes round to the idea that there might be something to the whole global warming thing. So his decision to draw parallels between eugenics and climate science seems all the more strange.


4 thoughts on “Do You See What He Did There?”

  1. Excellent. Relish all your posts Hind, thank you, and, as Ferguson is rather a personal bogeyman of mine lately, delighted to see the skewer enter at such a critical area as the climate collapse. Not that I’m even daring to guess how you might treat his imperial apologia finally. Cheers!

  2. does he state his denial more explicitly? the above quote is more of a contemporary reference for the prevelkance of the belief. I agree it is unwise to place it next to a falsified and destructive theory but I’m not sure this counts as a denial/

    1. You’re right, it isn’t denial as such, it is just a very unfortunate juxtaposition. It would be good if he clarified his position, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s