Posts

Here is a list of some of the crises, panics, movements, and fads over the last two centuries (circa 1825–2025). It was generated through a dialogue with Grok.

My point is that we've been crying that the world is about to end for a long time. The fact is it has gotten better, but has always done so in the face of the voices that would tear us down. I didn't know all of these myself. I haven't exhaustively analyzed every point to determine its authenticity, but it's educating:

Economic Crises and Panics

1. Panic of 1837 (United States)
• Summary: Land speculation and Jackson’s specie circular triggered a depression.
• Alarmism: New York Herald warned of “national ruin.”
• Skeptical Voices: William Gouge saw it as a bubble burst; recovery by 1843 confirmed this.
2. Panic of 1873 (United States and Europe)
• Summary: Railroad overinvestment led to a global downturn.
• Alarmism: The Times predicted “industrial collapse.”
• Skeptical Voices: Henry George blamed monopolies; recovery by 1879 supported this.
3. Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Great Depression
• Summary: Stock market collapse caused a decade-long crisis.
• Alarmism: Variety warned of “capitalism’s end.”
• Skeptical Voices: Milton Friedman (1963) blamed Fed errors; recovery showed resilience.
4. Oil Crisis of 1973
• Summary: OPEC’s embargo spiked prices, causing stagflation.
• Alarmism: Newsweek foresaw “modernity’s end.”
• Skeptical Voices: Julian Simon predicted adaptation; 1980s stability proved this.
5. 2008 Financial Crisis
• Summary: Subprime defaults triggered a global recession.
• Alarmism: The Economist feared a “new Depression.”
• Skeptical Voices: Nassim Taleb saw it as predictable; recovery by 2012-2013 validated this.

Environmental and Scientific Crises

1. Malthusian Overpopulation Panic (Late 18th–19th Century)
• Summary: Malthus predicted famine from population growth.
• Alarmism: Victorians warned of “universal starvation.”
• Skeptical Voices: Ester Boserup and the Green Revolution disproved limits.
2. DDT Panic (1960s–1970s)
• Summary: Silent Spring linked DDT to ecological harm, leading to bans.
• Alarmism: Carson warned of “a lifeless world.”
• Skeptical Voices: J. Gordon Edwards argued bans increased malaria; nuanced use reconsidered.
3. 1970s Global Cooling Scare
• Summary: Aerosols were feared to cause an ice age.
• Alarmism: Science News predicted “frozen doom.”
• Skeptical Voices: Reid Bryson called it speculative; warming flipped it.
4. Ozone Hole Crisis (1980s)
• Summary: CFC-driven ozone loss raised UV fears.
• Alarmism: National Geographic warned of “global catastrophe.”
• Skeptical Voices: Fred Singer cited natural cycles; recovery by 2020s tempered panic.
5. Climate Change/Global Warming (1990s–Present)
• Summary: CO2 emissions are tied to warming, with escalating predictions of floods, droughts, heatwaves, and societal collapse.
• Alarmism: Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006) claimed Miami underwater by 2100; IPCC’s AR6 (2021) warns of “irreversible tipping points”; Greta Thunberg’s “house on fire” (2018) and Extinction Rebellion’s “6 billion deaths” (2019) fuel panic. Deadlines like “12 years left” (2018) and The Guardian’s “climate apocalypse” headlines amplify dread. UN’s Guterres (2023) called it “global boiling,” with youth lawsuits (e.g., Held v. Montana, 2023) claiming “stolen futures.” Over 1,600 “climate emergencies” declared globally by 2024.
• Skeptical Voices: Bjørn Lomborg (False Alarm, 2020) critiques $100 trillion net-zero costs vs. modest benefits (e.g., 0.2°C reduction by 2100, per IPCC); Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen highlight model errors—e.g., 1990s predictions of 0.3°C/decade warming overshot reality (0.18°C, NOAA 2023). Patrick Moore calls it a “control scheme”; Steven Koonin (Unsettled, 2021) notes failed forecasts (e.g., Arctic ice persists, contra BBC 2007). Adaptation (e.g., Dutch flood defenses, 90% effective) and peaking emissions (IEA, 2023) question urgency. Critics like Roger Pielke Jr. (2024 X posts) argue alarmism drowns science in politics.
• Legal Note: Carbon taxes, Paris Agreement (2015), and lawsuits (Juliana v. United States) reflect alarmism, but West Virginia v. EPA (2022) limits regulatory overreach, echoing skeptics.

Medical Fads and Crises

1. Oophorectomy Craze (Late 19th Century)
• Summary: Ovary removal for “hysteria” peaked in the 1880s-1890s.
• Alarmism: Surgeons claimed women’s organs caused “insanity.”
• Skeptical Voices: James Chadwick called it barbaric; its decline exposed quackery.
2. Lobotomy Boom (1930s–1950s)
• Summary: Freeman lobotomized thousands for mental illness.
• Alarmism: Time hailed it as a “cure”; families feared chaos otherwise.
• Skeptical Voices: Patient failures (e.g., Rosemary Kennedy) ended it.
3. Thalidomide Crisis (1950s–1960s)
• Summary: A sedative caused 10,000+ birth defects.
• Alarmism: Life warned of a “monster generation.”
• Skeptical Voices: Frances Kelsey flagged risks; overregulation debated post-ban.
4. Opioid Epidemic (1990s–Present)
• Summary: Over-prescription led to 500,000+ deaths.
• Alarmism: NYT called it “America’s worst crisis.”
• Skeptical Voices: Jacob Sullum argued restrictions hurt patients; Portenoy minimized risks pre-crisis.

Social and Moral Panics

1. Temperance Movement/Prohibition (19th–Early 20th Century)
• Summary: Alcohol was blamed for societal ills, leading to Prohibition.
• Alarmism: Anti-Saloon League warned of “national decay.”
• Skeptical Voices: H.L. Mencken saw overreach; repeal (1933) confirmed this.
2. Red Scare (1919–1920, 1947–1957)
• Summary: Anti-communist panic targeted “subversives.”
• Alarmism: Hoover warned of “Soviet domination.”
• Skeptical Voices: Walter Lippmann called it hysteria; evidence was thin.
3. Satanic Panic (1980s–1990s)
• Summary: Alleged Satanic abuse led to wrongful convictions.
• Alarmism: Geraldo claimed “millions at risk.”
• Skeptical Voices: FBI’s Kenneth Lanning debunked it; cases collapsed.
4. Y2K Bug (Late 1990s)
• Summary: Computer date fears predicted collapse.
• Alarmism: Wired warned of “digital Armageddon.”
• Skeptical Voices: David Farber saw hype; minimal issues confirmed this.

Waves of Feminism

1. First Wave Feminism (1848–1920)
• Summary: Sought suffrage and legal rights.
• Alarmism: Suffragettes warned of “eternal subjugation”; opponents feared social ruin.
• Skeptical Voices: Almira Phelps argued roles sufficed; suffrage (1920) showed gradual change.
2. Second Wave Feminism (1960s–1980s)
• Summary: Pushed for workplace and reproductive equality.
• Alarmism: Friedan warned of “despair”; radicals predicted patriarchy’s fall.
• Skeptical Voices: Phyllis Schlafly feared family erosion; gains were steady.
3. Third Wave Feminism (1990s–2000s)
• Summary: Embraced intersectionality.
• Alarmism: Warned of “systemic misogyny” everywhere.
• Skeptical Voices: Camille Paglia saw self-indulgence; equality was largely won.
4. Fourth Wave Feminism (2010s–Present)
• Summary: #MeToo targeted harassment.
• Alarmism: Warned of “rape culture” as pervasive.
• Skeptical Voices: Christina Hoff Sommers argued overstatement; reforms suggest specific fixes.

Counter-Cultural Movements

1. Transcendentalism (1830s–1850s)
• Summary: Emerson and Thoreau rejected materialism.
• Alarmism: The Christian Examiner warned of “godless anarchy.”
• Skeptical Voices: Nathaniel Hawthorne saw impracticality; it faded post-Civil War.
2. Bohemianism (Late 19th–Early 20th Century)
• Summary: Artists in Paris and Greenwich Village defied bourgeois norms.
• Alarmism: The Atlantic (1890s) feared “moral decay.”
• Skeptical Voices: H.L. Mencken saw it as artistic flair; it waned by the 1920s.
3. Harlem Renaissance (1920s–1930s)
• Summary: Black artists (e.g., Langston Hughes) challenged racial norms.
• Alarmism: White critics warned of “cultural upheaval.”
• Skeptical Voices: Alain Locke saw it as creative, not disruptive; it enriched culture.
4. Beatnik Movement (1950s)
• Summary: Kerouac and Ginsberg rejected conformity.
• Alarmism: Time feared “degenerate youth.”
• Skeptical Voices: Norman Podhoretz called it a pose; it fizzled.
• Communist Backing?: FBI suspected ties; no funds proven.
5. Hippie Movement (1960s–1970s)
• Summary: Anti-war, free-love culture peaked at Woodstock.
• Alarmism: Nixon warned of “moral decay.”
• Skeptical Voices: Bennett Berger saw transience; it faded.
• Communist Backing?: HUAC alleged Soviet links; evidence weak.
6. Anti-War Movement (1960s–1970s)
• Summary: Vietnam protests demanded peace.
• Alarmism: Hoover warned of “communist treason.”
• Skeptical Voices: Howard Zinn saw grassroots power; war ended.
• Communist Backing?: FBI claimed North Vietnam ties; proof limited.
7. Punk Movement (1970s–1980s)
• Summary: DIY rebellion against norms.
• Alarmism: Daily Mirror feared “anarchy.”
• Skeptical Voices: Greil Marcus saw noise; it commercialized.
• Communist Backing?: Anarcho-punk flirted with communism; no Soviet direction.
8. New Age Movement (1970s–1990s)
• Summary: Spiritualism and healing surged.
• Alarmism: Evangelicals warned of “Satanic deception.”
• Skeptical Voices: James Randi debunked claims; it waned.
9. Grunge Movement (1990s)
• Summary: Seattle’s anti-commercial music rejected excess.
• Alarmism: Rolling Stone feared “youth apathy.”
• Skeptical Voices: Chuck Klosterman saw a style; it mainstreamed.
10. Rave Culture (1980s–1990s)
• Summary: Ecstasy-fueled parties defied norms.
• Alarmism: Sun warned of “drug chaos.”
• Skeptical Voices: Simon Reynolds saw hedonism; laws curbed it (Criminal Justice Act, 1994).
11. Goth Subculture (1980s–Present)
• Summary: Dark aesthetics and music (e.g., The Cure) rejected mainstream cheer.
• Alarmism: Parents feared “satanic influence” (NYT, 1985).
• Skeptical Voices: Dick Hebdige saw it as aesthetic; it persists nichely.
12. Straight Edge Movement (1980s–Present)
• Summary: Punk offshoot rejected drugs/alcohol (e.g., Minor Threat).
• Alarmism: Critics warned of “militant puritanism.”
• Skeptical Voices: Ian MacKaye saw it as personal choice; it remains small.
13. Cyberpunk Culture (1980s–1990s)
• Summary: Sci-fi (e.g., Neuromancer) and tech rebellion foresaw dystopia.
• Alarmism: Wired warned of “tech tyranny.”
• Skeptical Voices: Bruce Sterling saw it as fiction; tech integrated without collapse.
14. Maker Movement (2000s–Present)
• Summary: DIY tech and crafting challenged mass production.
• Alarmism: Forbes feared “economic disruption.”
• Skeptical Voices: Chris Anderson saw it as a hobby; it supplements, not replaces.

Intellectual Counter-Culture Movements

1. Marxist Revolutions (1848–20th Century)
• Summary: Marx inspired class uprisings.
• Alarmism: Marx warned of capitalism’s “doom.”
• Skeptical Voices: Schumpeter saw adaptability; Soviet fall questioned inevitability.
2. Foucault’s Power Critique (1960s–1980s)
• Summary: Institutions as oppression fueled activism.
• Alarmism: Foucault warned of “total control.”
• Skeptical Voices: Chomsky saw impracticality; societies functioned.
3. Derrida’s Deconstruction (1960s–1990s)
• Summary: Challenged meaning, inspiring identity politics.
• Alarmism: Warned of “oppressive language.”
• Skeptical Voices: John Searle called it incoherent; limits curbed it.
4. Marcuse’s New Left (1960s–1970s)
• Summary: Consumerism as repression sparked radicals.
• Alarmism: Marcuse foresaw “total conformity.”
• Skeptical Voices: Daniel Bell saw democracy’s strength; stability prevailed.

Racial and Social Justice Movements

1. Black Lives Matter (2013–Present)
• Summary: Protests against police brutality (e.g., George Floyd).
• Alarmism: Cullors warned of “genocidal policing”; 2020 riots raised collapse fears.
• Skeptical Voices: Heather Mac Donald refutes systemic bias; reforms suggest targeted fixes.
• Communist Backing?: Critics cite Cullors’ Marxism; no direct funding proven.
2. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) (2000s–Present)
• Summary: Policies push racial/gender equity in institutions.
• Alarmism: Ibram X. Kendi warns of “systemic racism” as omnipresent; Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility (2018) claims “white supremacy” in all whites; DEI training mandates (e.g., $5 billion industry by 2023, Forbes) amplify “cultural crisis.”
• Skeptical Voices: Thomas Sowell argues outcomes reflect choice, not bias; Jordan Peterson calls it “forced equality”; Christopher Rufo (2021) labels it a “grift” undermining merit. SFFA v. Harvard (2023) banning affirmative action reflects skepticism. Critics like Coleman Hughes (2024 X posts) see it as divisive, not unifying.
• Communist Backing?: NY Post (2022) links DEI to Marxist class struggle; no Soviet evidence, but socialist rhetoric parallels exist.

Fads with Crisis Undertones

1. Tulip Mania (1630s, Echoed in 19th Century)
• Summary: Tulip prices crashed after a boom.
• Alarmism: Charles Mackay warned of “crowd insanity.”
• Skeptical Voices: Anne Goldgar saw it as minor.
2. Peak Oil (2000s)
• Summary: Oil depletion fears predicted collapse.
• Alarmism: Matthew Simmons foresaw “civilizational end.”
• Skeptical Voices: Michael Lynch predicted innovation; shale oil proved this.
3. Gender-Affirming Care for Minors (2010s–Present)
• Summary: Blockers and hormones for youth surged.
• Alarmism: WPATH warns of “suicide without care.”
• Skeptical Voices: Cass Report (2024) finds weak evidence; harm questions utility.

Patterns, Alarmism, and Communist Claims

• Alarmism: Economic panics predict ruin (2008), environmental crises doom (Climate), medical fads cure all (Lobotomy), and social movements warn of collapse (DEI, BLM). Hyperbole drives laws (e.g., Clean Air Act, Civil Rights Act) and lawsuits (Juliana).
• Skepticism: Data (Friedman, Sowell) or pragmatism (Lippmann, Curry) temper fears; outcomes (e.g., Y2K, Prohibition) validate restraint. Cultural movements fade when novelty wanes (Grunge, Rave).
• Communist Backing: Red Scare, Anti-War, BLM, and DEI faced allegations—Marxist echoes in Marcuse, Cullors—but evidence of Soviet funding is thin (United States v. Dennis, 341 U.S. 494, 1951). Legal legacies include bans (Texas SB 14), rights (Voting Rights Act), and limits (SFFA v. Harvard).
• Climate Expansion: Alarmism’s scale—trillions spent, 1,600+ emergency declarations, and youth radicalization (e.g., Just Stop Oil)—contrasts with skeptics’ data: emissions peaking (IEA, 2023), adaptation success (e.g., 90% flood protection in rich nations), and model failures (e.g., no snow by 2010). Critics see a politicized science rift, with legal battles intensifying (West Virginia v. EPA).

This list is intended to display some of the upheaval, cycles of panic, and calls of crises of our recent generations.

I say we just get that we have had an effect or the world, but it is also ours to shape and adapt to. Humanity is good. We should have more of it. I could go on, but this gives us a little perspective.

 

 

Got to love Grok.  I asked it to “unpack for me the crimes inherent in providing medical treatment without consent, particularly as it relates to minors and life changing surgery.”

Providing medical treatment without consent is a serious ethical and legal issue, rooted in the principle of bodily autonomy and the right to self-determination. When it comes to minors and life-changing surgery, the matter becomes even more complex due to questions of capacity, parental authority, and long-term consequences. Let’s break it down step-by-step.

Core Crimes and Violations

1. Battery (Civil and Criminal)

   • In legal terms, performing medical treatment—including surgery—without consent constitutes battery. Battery is the intentional, unauthorized touching of another person’s body. Even if the intent is to "help," the lack of consent makes it unlawful.
   • For minors, consent typically comes from a parent or legal guardian. If a doctor proceeds without this, or if the guardian’s consent overrides the minor’s explicit dissent (in cases where the minor has some capacity to express a view), it could still be challenged as battery.

2. Violation of Informed Consent

   • Informed consent requires that the patient (or guardian) be fully educated about the procedure, risks, benefits, and alternatives. Failing to provide this—or worse, misrepresenting it—breaches medical ethics and can lead to lawsuits or criminal charges like fraud or negligence.
   • With minors, the situation is murkier: they may not fully grasp the implications of life-changing surgery (e.g., gender-affirming procedures, sterilization, or amputations), raising questions about whether true "informed" consent is even possible.

3. Assault (in Some Jurisdictions)

   • If the patient or guardian is coerced, threatened, or misled into agreeing, this could escalate to assault. For example, telling a minor, “You’ll die if you don’t do this,” when it’s not true, could be both assault and a violation of medical ethics.

4. Human Rights Violations

   • Forcing life-changing surgery on anyone, especially a minor, may breach human rights frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 3: right to security of person) or the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 12: respecting the child’s views based on age and maturity).
   • Irreversible procedures done without clear, voluntary consent could also be framed as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international law.

Minors and Life-Changing Surgery: Special Considerations

1. Capacity and Competence

   • Minors are generally presumed to lack full decision-making capacity, which is why guardians step in. However, older minors (e.g., 16-17) may have “Gillick competence” (a UK legal standard, adopted elsewhere), meaning they can consent—or refuse—if they understand the implications.
   • Performing surgery against a competent minor’s refusal, even with parental consent, could be illegal and unethical. For instance, courts have ruled against parents forcing teens into treatments like chemotherapy when the teen competently objects.

2. Parental Overreach or Abuse

   • If a parent consents to a procedure that’s not in the child’s best interest (e.g., unnecessary cosmetic surgery or experimental treatments), it could be deemed abusive. Courts can intervene via child protection laws, stripping parental rights in extreme cases.
   • Conversely, if a parent refuses life-saving treatment for a minor (e.g., blood transfusions for religious reasons), the state can override them—but this is a narrow exception, not a blank check for medical overreach.

3. Irreversibility and Future Autonomy

   • Life-changing surgeries (e.g., gender reassignment, sterilization) alter a minor’s body permanently before they reach an age where they can fully weigh the consequences. This raises ethical red flags about “stealing” their future autonomy.
   • Critics argue this is a form of medical harm, akin to mutilation, if consent is dubious or the procedure isn’t medically urgent. Proponents might counter that delaying treatment (e.g., for gender dysphoria) causes its own harm—but the lack of long-term data on outcomes keeps this debate heated.

Legal Examples and Precedents

• United States: In Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court upheld parental rights as fundamental, but this isn’t absolute—courts can step in if a child’s welfare is at stake. Medical battery cases against doctors for unconsented procedures have led to hefty settlements.
• UK: The Re B case (1981) allowed a court to authorize surgery on a disabled minor against parental wishes, but only because it was life-saving. Contrast this with elective surgeries, where courts are far stricter about consent.
• Forced Sterilization: Historical cases (e.g., Buck v. Bell, 1927, in the US) show the state once justified non-consensual procedures on minors or vulnerable people “for the public good.” Modern laws universally condemn this, yet echoes persist in debates over transgender youth treatments.

Ethical Gray Areas

• Emergency Exception: Doctors can act without consent in life-threatening emergencies (e.g., a car accident victim). But this doesn’t apply to elective, life-changing surgeries on minors—those require deliberation, not haste.
• Cultural/Religious Conflicts: Some parents push for procedures like circumcision or even female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM is outright banned in many countries as a crime, regardless of consent, highlighting how societal norms shape what’s “acceptable.”
• Medical Experimentation: If a surgery is unproven or experimental, performing it on a minor without explicit, informed consent (and ethical oversight) could violate laws like the US Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46) on human subjects.

Conclusion

The crimes inherent in non-consensual medical treatment—especially life-changing surgery on minors—span battery, assault, negligence, and human rights abuses. For minors, the stakes are higher due to their vulnerability and the permanence of the outcomes. Legally, it’s a minefield of guardian rights, child protection, and medical duty. Ethically, it’s a battleground over autonomy, harm, and who gets to decide a child’s fate. The core principle remains: no one should wield a scalpel over another’s body without clear, voluntary, and informed permission—least of all over a child who might one day regret what was done.