I don't want to be accused of pulling a bait and switch so let me say from the outset that this post isn't really about climate change, but rather about a mindset that makes it nearly impossible for deniers of same, or for that matter any other set of beliefs, to reject what their own experience, factual evidence or the overwhelming views of experts on any subject have to say.
First, we must acknowledge that the majority of people who express an opinion on this and most subjects are anything but well informed. We live in an era of unprecedented access to information--and if we were so inclined to educate ourselves it would be far less difficult than it was for even the most learned of scientists in the 1700's to gather the latest insights on any subject, much less to assess, compare, or conduct any level of due diligence. Yet, they did indeed do precisely that, as history shows. But despite the ease with which we could do the same today, those who conduct efforts to diligently inform themselves are very few.
To say that we live in an environment of information plenty would be an understatement, but most of us, most of the time turn to surrogates to tell us what to think. You might think it is for lack of intelligence, but in reality it is as much due to indifference and a curious kind of trust. That trust is placed in a particular source of information, a television news channel, an individual: a politician, so-called journalist, a pastor, pundit, neighbor or family member. What they believe, those who do not care to think for themselves believe because they see themselves as part of a tribe. With a wink and nod they identify with a self appointed prophet and if their anointed believes something then so do they, no questions asked.
From the earliest of 'philosophers' to the present the entire purpose of education has been to train the next generation to think, and more importantly to think for themselves. Only in the latter part of the 19th century did the western world begin to focus education on information and specialized skills rather than a generalized knowledge of basic sciences, mathematics and language and significantly, critical thinking. Today, in all but a few academies, critical thinking has devolved to questioning, and questioning we are told leads to being woke--a catchall word used by deniers of all sorts for anyone who does not subscribe to a world view consonant with their own. It is telling that in repressive regimes across the world the first thing that is controlled is education and most of ll independent thinking. Those in power do not define what they repress, but claim a knowledge of its sinister purpose. They know it when they see it--kind of like witchcraft in 1600's Salem.
Experts, people who have devoted their careers, often their lifetimes to the in-depth study of some subject are certainly the last to be trusted, if they do not belong to the tribe. And as you might suspect those who believe in the words of politicians or media figures, friends or relatives over experts, have a healthy disdain for these members of the 'woke' community who clearly have a hidden agenda. Even when the vast majority of scientists, academics and experts agree--which is rarely the case on any subject--though it is on climate change, it must surely be a conspiracy of dark forces in some hidden lair that bids them to say what they do, while all of us, all over the world are living the truth of it every day.
Humans' cleverest mind tricks are reserved for their ability to dismiss what they can observe, see and feel. They employ two strategies. One is to partially accept what is evident but refuse to accept its cause because accepting that would lead to questions about so many other beliefs and then where would we be? For these folks, the climate is changing but it isn't the result of anything men have done--just nature. And if it is just nature, then there is nothing they can or should do because nature is so much more powerful than humans are that it would be pointless, and in any event nature will eventually restore balance. Except it isn't, it won't, certainly not in our lifetimes or those of our children's children's children--or maybe ever.
We humans are experts at convincing ourselves that certain threats can be relegated to the ash heap. Especially when acknowledging a threat requires we do something about it--and that we do something which requires us to change, give up something we enjoy, or when we can convince ourselves that we can insulate our tribe, family, and friends from the consequences, even if everyone else is harmed. This most cynical of views is all too common and is not limited to people of means but expressed by rich and poor alike, and more readily by those in their latter years of life who know they are unlikely to face the consequences at all.
There was a time when humanity was closer to nature--to the every day question of survival, so we listened and looked more critically at what nature--the world around us was showing us. Our lives counted on our discernment of weather, of the scarcity or abundance of resources, of the behaviors of others. We had our superstitions and our beliefs to be sure, but we were far more grounded and practical. We knew intuitively that we must first help ourselves before asking others to help us. We knew that willing ignorance was never an excuse for inaction. Maybe, just maybe we've lost something vital, allowed ourselves to become dulled by hubris and the loss of senses that were at one time common to all men. Unfortunately today, in the words of Willam Hazlitt; "common sense to most people is nothing more than their opinions".
Comments