Why do people seem to trust pseudoscience, like claims that tumors are really a fungus, yet not believe that scientists and doctors can easily tell the difference between a human cell and a fungal cell? (and that they could too if they simply learned how to use a microscope?) Why do they believe in conspiracies that say mainstream American cancer treatment is part of a eugenics program to breed perfect people from wealthy American bloodlines, yet forget that cancer research is global and people outside the US would have noticed by now if everything known about cancer was a lie? Are we as a country that self-centered? Why do people think they can pick and choose which experts to believe and which to not, or which information FROM THE SAME EXPERTS to accept and which to reject? Climatologists, geologist, earth scientist, etc. are correct when they say the climate changed a lot in the past, but they’re wrong when they say it’s changing now? Or they’re correct about the causes of climate change in the past, but not now? Why do they think they know more than people who’ve spent years studying a topic or field? Why do people think reading a few blogs or popular science books on any topic is all it takes to really understand something? Why do people think ignoring information they don’t like is the best way to deal with it - “I went to a museum and refused to look at the exhibits I disagree with, so I have no idea what information they gave, but I’m sure they’re wrong!” (I have a friend who refused to look at museum exhibits on early humans so she could continue to deny what was there). Why do the people who claim science “indoctrinates” rather than teaches critical thinking, who have never learned science in the first place, have so much power over how science is used and taught? Why is being educated associated with “elitism” and educated people so distrusted to know even their own field? Do we have some kind of phobia of education? Why do people distrust authorities (experts, not something like police) in general? Sure people can misuse information for their own gain, but certainly people can misuse ignorance as well (see above examples, esp. the tumor=fungus because they’re a similar color), and what reason is there to believe experts are likely to manipulate others with their knowledge anyway? Do we just fear each other that much? (I think I’ll get into this idea later)
By all means, think for yourself, figure out what makes sense and what doesn’t, be skeptical (not cynical), and figure out what’s useful and what isn’t. Science isn’t about blindly believing everything an expert tells you, but about being able to critically assess things for yourself. But there is an element of trust in your fellow human beings necessary. You can’t know everything, it would be unreasonable to even try, but you should be able to assess whether a person knows what they’re talking about based on more than just if you like what they have to say or not. People different from yourself are not monsters. If the information you accept always conforms to what you already think and never challenges you to change your position or even really think about it, there might be a problem. No one is that perfectly knowledgeable about the world.
I wasn't going to put this entry up yet, but I read this article http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622 and the contrast of this exerpt:
"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged 'unequivocal.'"
with the comments left simply denying the information above pushed me to post it now.
I just read the Al Gore article. It brought up a lot of issues for me. I'm not going to get into the climate issue itself since I don't have too much to say about it. I do have concerns about the intermingling of science and politics and I wonder whether the future of the climate can really be accurately predicted (and whether, if it can, we can actually know what to do about it in a way that the benefits outweigh the costs). I don't so much doubt the motives of scientists, though.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I hope this is not too off topic and that you won't mind me commenting, but I needed to get my thoughts out. A few of the things that rubbed me the wrong way:
1. Whether we need to do it or not (for our long-term interests), moving to clean energy alternatives right now will not be economically beneficial in the short term. If it were, it would be happening without the government having to make laws to push for it.* That's not an empirical question--it's a logical deduction. Al Gore is lying--yes, LYING--when he says that. And when he makes statements like that, for me it calls into question his motives and everything else he says.
*This is assuming that the government isn't subsidizing fossil fuels in some really significant and meaningful way. To be honest, I'm not sure whether we are or not. I wouldn't doubt be surprised if we are, though. The odd thing is that we're ALSO subsidizing alternative energy. So why not just remove the subsidies to fossil fuels instead? The reason, of course, is that the political pressures are in favor of giving hand-outs to as many influential groups as possible so as to secure votes & funding during the next election cycle. Notice all the commercials on TV now from companies pushing for alternative energy? This is all about getting the public to support alternative energy so that these companies can turn around and get hand-outs from the government to do "clean energy" at taxpayer's expense instead of their own. So it's not just the oil companies who are propagandizing for their personal benefit. This is happening on both sides (Once again, Al Gore fails to mention this, leading me to question his motives and consequently his facts).
This is (and always has been) what happens in politics. That's why I'm in favor of keeping politics out of as many decisions as possible. Otherwise government becomes a giant rent-seeking contest. Gore points out this rent-seeking when he sees it, but he seems to miss the connection. Instead of wanting fewer decisions made by the political process, he wants MORE of them made that way!
2. I don't buy his argument that public discourse is at an all time low--at least, not in the way he argues it.
ReplyDeleteIncredibly, he downplays the Internet here. Most notably, he fails to mention all of the online-only media outlets there are (he only talks about existing newspapers trying and failing to make the transition--I can't help but draw the conclusion that he's arguing for subsidies for them). But most importantly, he misses one of the greatest things about the Internet--that these sorts of traditional "outlets" aren't really needed at all! Consider all of the personal blogs and web sites out there like this one where people can speak their minds. All of the web communities, forums, and comments sections. This is all part of the broader political conversation, and it is much more of an active and participatory experience than reading the local newspaper ever was or ever could hope to be.
Aside from the Internet, he completely glosses over the fact that we used to be limited to just the network news and limited radio stations, while now we have cable news, satellite radio, etc. to provide competing options.
I think what Gore really laments is people's lack of interest in honest public debate, and in the truth. He laments that many people CHOOSE not to use the Internet or read the paper, and instead watch TV. But this is their choice. How can he blame it on the media? The popular media tells people what they want to hear because that's what many people want it to do. They want to be entertained, NOT informed. If the public truly wanted to be informed, media outlets would have no choice but to take that approach or else face extinction.
He laments that no one can go up to Comcast, knock on their door, and enter the public debate on TV. But when was this ever the case? Certainly not when the networks ruled the airwaves. In fact, there is no conceivable regime under which this would ever be possible.** What is his solution? Government regulation? Government ownership? How would this help? (I would argue it would hurt!) After all, one of the primary roles of the news media is to keep the government in check.
**Of course, everybody wants THEIR views to be heard more loudly, and I think Gore is no exception. But his desire to tip the scales in favor of his arguments by changing the way people voluntarily choose to consume media sounds like a one-way conversation to me, not public discourse.
So I really think Gore is placing the blame on the wrong party. History (including our own) is full of governments going to war based on lies and propaganda, often because there was no way for public discourse to combat it. However, the sad thing for us isn't (as Gore thinks) that we don't have a place for public discourse anymore or that the news media doesn't have the power to fight against propaganda (the revolutions in the middle east are evidence that this isn't the case) Rather, what's sad is that people (at least in the US) don't seem to care enough to demand that kind of media.
Personally, I think this is a cultural shift, and I think at the root of it (and this comes back to what you talk about in your post here) is a willful ignorance that can only come from a lack of personal responsibility. In a world where people's survival and achievement of their ends depends on their ability to think clearly and to work cooperatively with others, people will want to know the truth. They will learn to be kind and honest to others because they will discover that it is in their own self-interest to live in a society characterized by kindness and honesty (reciprocity). In other words, when people have to be responsible, their incentives better align with the public interest.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I know there could be a variety of reasons for this cultural shift. Overall increase in standards of living may have something to do with it. But there is reason to believe that many seemingly well-intentioned public policies are to blame (I suspect you may disagree). I think part of it is also the transition away from religion as the foundation for many people's moral codes. Religion provides cut-and-dried morals for people to live by which are usually very socially beneficial. Many people have abandoned religion but still haven't figured out what to replace it with--what to base their morals on.
To end on a positive (and more relevant) note:
"But there is an element of trust in your fellow human beings necessary. You can’t know everything, it would be unreasonable to even try, but you should be able to assess whether a person knows what they’re talking about based on more than just if you like what they have to say or not. People different from yourself are not monsters. If the information you accept always conforms to what you already think and never challenges you to change your position or even really think about it, there might be a problem. No one is that perfectly knowledgeable about the world."
I'm so glad you said this. Especially the bit about how we need to be able to trust each other because we can't all know everything (sometimes I think the education system hasn't grasped this yet!). That's one of the foundational concepts in economics (division of labor), and I think it's also important for ethics, to explain why honesty is important.
Holy Cow. That was long. I'm sorry, I didn't realize how long it was getting (or that I would have to post in separate pieces)!!!
I can finally comment! Google has some major issues it needs to fix with logging in.
ReplyDeleteOK, so I've put off reading your comments because I was afraid to see what I started. But I've read them now, and I can't say I want to argue with your economic point of view because I agree with some and I don't really understand enough of other parts to disagree. But I have to question I few things.
1) Is Gore lying when he says it's economically feasible in the short term, or does he just not understand economics? Seriously, I don't know what his background is, and as I think we can both agree, having political power doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're talking about. So I'd be hesitant to say he's lying when to me there are other possibilities. Maybe I'm wrong. But Gore's not the expert I'm referring to; to me, he's become a medium for communicating climate science to non-scientist. Whether he's any good at it is obviously debatable.
2) I'm not even one to claim that alternative energy or anything like that even would be economically beneficial in the short term. In fact, my purpose for linking to that article wasn't the political points about what government should or shouldn't do. It was because of the large number of people who flat out deny the science, either because they don't like Gore, who has little to do with the actual science, or because, well, it's inconvenient, economically or otherwise, or because they believe conspiracies and don't trust scientists. When people refuse to even have a mature discussion about a topic, getting them to do anything is a distant second.
Although I do have doubts that the market will always show the most efficient process. You questioned whether we can predict climate accurately, but I question whether we can predict human psychology well enough to say that if something were beneficial it would happen on its own.
3) Can we predict the climate accurately? Well, that depends on whether you’re looking for perfect accuracy, which is impossible, or enough accuracy to make a conclusion...there are plenty of things we can't predict about it, like tornado patterns (although that's largely because we don't have good past data to compare to or build on). But I read an analogy recently that I thought explained it well: extra greenhouse gases are like extra salt in the diet of someone who's at risk for heart disease. It's not going to cause a heart attack or stroke by itself, but it's a risk factor that makes those things more likely. So no, we can't accurately predict things like when/where hurricanes will strike or how severe they'll be, but we do know that warmer air and water makes them more likely, especially when combined with normal variation, like el nino. And we’ve known for 100+ years that gases like CO2 and methane hold heat really well, we know we're putting a lot more of it into the air than we did in the past and can measure that. We don't know exactly how forests will compensate, but we have an idea and also know there are less forests in many parts of the world, and we are now seeing a number of the things predicted to happen, like rapid glacial melt, ocean acidification (as it absorbs CO2) and warming, more extreme weather in general...these are just the ones I know off the top of my head.
ReplyDeleteSo, no, we can’t predict exactly what will happen. But we can get a good idea.
4) To go back to politics and your last comment about personal responsibility... I don't entirely disagree with your assessment that part of what environmentalists, etc. are asking for is political involvement, government subsidies and regulations, etc. I doubt many people would really deny that when pushed, even if we'd like that to not be the way it is. I think the analogy to heart disease is a good one to explain the perspective of people worried about climate change. Having heart disease doesn't guarantee you'll die from a heart attack, although you have a good chance of having other problems, even if they don't kill you, and preventative measures can cost a lot of money and may require a lifestyle change, but most people will take at least some action to reduce their risk. Not everyone of course (take my cousin, who died at 50 because she refused to do anything), and that's their decision; no one can make them do anything, and I don't think anyone should, as upsetting as the outcome can be. The difference is that climate change is global, not personal, and if a large enough number of people refuse to do anything, it affects us all. This is the sort of situation I think a lot of people would argue government regulation is for. I agree that politics should be kept out of individual decisions as much as possible, but this isn't just a personal decision, and what people do or don't do can affect more than just themselves and their families. Ending slavery was economically bad for the South, but it was harmful to others. Yes, I know reasons for ending it were more complicated than that, but shouldn’t that have been reason enough? Or should everyone else just wait around and be harmed while others learn to be responsible? If that ever even happens.
You mentioned personal responsibility as related to searching for truth, and that's really the point of writing about these issues. To hopefully inform people. Unfortunately, I've seen far too many who don't want truth, but for their perceptions to be the truth (even though they believe they want truth) and refuse to hear what anyone else has to say. Like the girl I mentioned who refused to look at museum displays. That’s the heart of why I wrote what I did in the first place.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I realized early on about religions in general is that all different people believe all different things and most are capable of living good lives, getting along with others, being responsible to each other, even getting along with different groups, yet they can't all be correct. So I don't think "truth" and responsibility are necessarily connected. Maybe a search for truth, but even then, I worry that hoping for more and more people over time to have a better understanding of each other than the generations before them is too much like waiting for a utopia. I hope for that anyway, but I don’t think waiting is always an option either.
I will get into your comment about morality another time, but for now, I’ll just say this: From my personal experience, the majority (although no, not all) of people who can’t get along with others have been the more religious ones. Some of them can be very nice people, but they can’t seem to figure out how to be nice or respectful to people who are different; they just act odd at best, like you’re an alien. I blame it more on the culture of a certain region than on religion itself, personally, so I think people have a hard time truly understanding responsibility and kindness to each other no matter where their morality comes from. To these people, the best way to get along with others is to force them to not be different or to just not interact with them.
Yay, thanks for responding to my comments :)
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Al Gore might just be ignorant of the economics of the situation. But there are many, many people in politics who aren't or who should know better who still tow that line (or the classic broken window fallacy that war and natural disasters are good for the economy), and it's very frustrating (and especially harmful when used as a justification for war).
I won't get into the question of positive market outcomes and human psychology that you brought up. But suffice it to say it's a very interesting subject that's kind of at the core of economics. There's an answer to that question (I've read quite a bit about it), but I honestly don't feel equipped to try and explain it, haha.
You are right (and I don't disagree) that climate change is an externality (a cost imposed on other people without their consent), which in traditional economic theory means that it's fair game for regulation. My question is whether the political incentives are such that wise regulation will be possible. But if the situation is really as serious and immediate as some say it is, and we can actually do something meaningful about it (that is, without causing mass starvation or something), then I would not be against it, even if the politics of it are not ideal.
Lastly (this doesn't really have to do with climate change), I don't think there is a utopia and I don't know that I'd want it if there was. But there is progress in the right direction, and I think that when we try and force progress on a political level by micromanaging people's lives (using what I think of as "the tools of evil" to do good) it doesn't work out so well and can backfire or disintegrate into authoritarian control. And even if we could create some sort of utopia that way (which all evidence suggests we can't), I don't know that it would be worth the loss of freedom anyway.
P.S. I don't think I would say that ending slavery was economically bad for the south, certainly not in the long term. It was bad for farmers who had slaves at the time, but I would guess that per capita income would have increased after ending slavery, since the slaves are people too and must be counted among the population and their well-being taken into account. And of course the very idea that slavery and the withholding of personal freedom can create a prosperous society is contradicted by every authoritarian experiment in history.