DELIBERATE STUPIDITY

There was some wonderful research done nearly two decades ago which deserved further funding, but which received a cold shoulder because it did not support the “Narrative.”

There’s apparently a part of the Arctic coastline, (I believe in the
north of Greenland or of the Canadian Archipelago), where the isostatic rebound as ice melted was so great that it actually rose shorelines faster than the swiftly rising sea. Therefore that coastline is the one bit of coastline where we can see the coastlines of thousands of years ago.

I was especially interested in the research done along that coast because it discovered signs of human habitation along that ancient coastline. Everywhere else along the arctic coast any evidence is buried under the waters of the risen sea. But along that swiftly risen shore scientists discovered simple evidence, circles of stones with charcoal inside, that radiocarbon dated thousands of years old.

It should be noted that that coast is so far north that not even
Inuit go there. Rarely is the coast ice-free. Occasionally polynyas form when southerly gales blow the sea-ice offshore, but usually the ice comes grinding back, as that coast receives the full brunt of sea-ice propelled by the crosspolar drift. The constant grinding of sea-ice
creates a beach that looks very different than a beach formed by lapping waves.

The constant grinding of the ice against the shore often packs the ice so tightly that air-holes are few and far between, thus creating an
ecosystem seals avoided, and because there were few seals there were no polar bears. Consequently meeting a 1500 pound polar bears was one worry researchers didn’t have. However there were mosquitoes, (though what blood mosquitoes had to suck when there were no researchers about was not explained). However along
this shore young scientists scurried. (How they got the funding to
travel to one of the most remote beaches on earth I can’t say.) But they would be the last to call such a place “God forsaken”, because
everywhere they looked they saw revelations.

Among these young researchers was a (back then) young lady, and she wrote a lovely paper, excited about what she had noticed. (I recall thinking to myself that in July most young ladies would go to a beach where they could show off in a bikini, but this young lady loved science, and chose a different beach.) What she noticed was that, as one walked upwards above the shoreline (and, in a sense, back in time), the geology changed. Rather than the shoreline geology created by grinding ice one saw the geology created by lapping waves. In other words, the geological evidence suggested that thousands of years ago the Arctic Ocean was ice free.

This hypothesis was in a sense verified by the primary aim of the field study, which was apparently to collect specimens of ancient driftwood from the various beaches above the modern beach, which then would be brought south to labs, and radio carbon-dated. (This search was complicated by the ancient humans, who apparently burned every stick of driftwood they could find.) Enough chips of driftwood remained to determine the date the sea had washed various levels of the rising shoreline.

But then some of these eager young researchers went the extra mile.
Besides determining the age of the chips of driftwood, they determined the species of tree. And some were not local. Some were from trees that only grow inland in Asia. They must have floated down flooding rivers like the Lena, but how did they cross the Arctic Ocean? Was this not evidence the sea was not covered in ice, in the past?

Although I was a witness from afar, I was as eager as they seemed to be. Surely another grant of money should allow them to return to this remote beach. I especially wanted archaeologists to join them, and to focus on the ancient humans who wandered coasts where even Inuit don’t go. But…strangely….the funding utterly dried up.

I think we know why. The fact the arctic may have been ice-free in
the past, and the world did not end because of it, might contradict the current “Narrative”, which suggests that, if the arctic becomes
ice-free, the world will end.

What was so important about this “Narrative”?

I believe that the denial of evidence these young researchers were so excited about discovering, (and to refuse to fund them further is indeed a denial), was intentional. It was deliberate.

But what good did it do? Did it not instead do harm?

Think of those young scientists, who sacrificed their summer to do a
field study in a remote and uncomfortable beach, yet returned excited
about what they had discovered, but who received no accolades, and
instead experienced a sort of cancel culture. What did they “learn”?

And think of the rest of us. How much more we might have discovered if we had followed-up on the young scientists initial expedition? How much more enlightened might we be?

The Truth is up there waiting to show itself, but those who control the funding seemingly cower from Truth. They obey the “Narrative”.

Which is to say that they prefer to stay stupid.

When stupidity is deliberate, ignorance is more than perpetuated; in some ways it is created. After all, the young scientists ended our ignorance twenty years ago. To disdain their hard work is a sort of willful blinding of clear vision. It has a corrosive effect on society as a whole, but most especially upon those who chose to be stupid.

Those who prefer to stay stupid think they gain something, (money or position or power), but they in fact lose. There are inevitable consequences to staying stupid. Others find answers where you find none, and a fog of growing blindness increasingly handicaps.

My conclusion? We are reminded of our imperfections and our ignorance quite enough, by our daily lives, which is why we seek answers. We should not seek stupidity.