Friday, October 29, 2010

Global Warming and the Liberal Bias

People usually think they’re right. Whenever someone has developed an opinion about something, they usually will cling to that opinion longer than it makes any sense. The less information a person has, often, the stronger his dearly held opinion. Modern economics is the perfect example. People want to “fix” the economy. Republicans say that “government regulation” and taxes are the problems. Democrats say it’s “corporate greed” and there needs to be more consumer protection i.e. “bigger government.” The quotation marks are there for two reasons 1.) I don’t have a clear idea of what they mean 2.) I’m not sure anybody does. Yet people, even usually rational ones, are furious at people who hold different opinions. Even students of economics probably don’t know whether it’s more practical to move to a socialistic form of government or more towards free markets, so how can work-a-day six-pack Joe be expected to have any rational opinion about complex economic systems. This habit of clinging to opinions about which we know nothing is evil but ingrained and lives in both the educated and the stupid. It’s unfortunate that this trait is so happily exploited by political parties, but I have the sense that it’s not a new phenomenon. The drunken worker in the whiskey republic probably didn’t understand the finer points of taxation without representation. Canada and Australia have been fine under the tyrannical British rule. “Don’t Tread On Me” is exploitative and vague yet probably did far more to stir up revolt than saying, “we want a representational democracy under the rule of law.” This isn’t new. Swaying people to a specific action i.e. revolt (or more modernly, voting) is called manipulation. If, however, we go through a nuanced explanation of empirical facts leading to a near inevitable conclusion it’s called education. The latter is more difficult and can’t be done in a 30 second ad spot, if at all.
One of the current memes that is spouted by democrats is the insistence that global warming is caused by man. Like all scientific beliefs, it’s curious to cling to the tenants of global warming like it’s gospel. I heard a curious story on the radio the other day that cited concerns over the science program NOVA and the fact that it’s main supporter is Coca-Cola. Concerns arose when at the end of an episode about global warming when the narrator suggested that humans were better adapted for warmer temperatures. This seemingly innocuous (and certainly true) statement made many people concerned that the show was presenting biased information at the request of their sponsor. Most people who are convinced global warming exists, probably have no idea why they’re convinced. Scientists say so. Scientists also say Pluto isn’t a planet. They’re probably wrong. It’s not that I’m accusing scientists of fraud, but the mean temperature and the weather systems on this planet are ludicrously complicated. A record that goes back 200,000 years doesn’t actually tell us much of anything. It’s a short time geologically and evolutionarily. There is a credible theory and some supportive evidence for manmade climate change, but there is also the fact that the weather is extraordinarily complicated. I’m not interested in whether or not climatologists are right or wrong, but I am concerned with how the supposed “educated” side of the debate behaves, because they ironically treat the subject unscientifically. The whole argument is unscientific. People no longer listen to both arguments. If someone writes a book on global warming he’s chastised or applauded, but his work is only known by a few. There is also the ludicrous statement that “over 90% of scientists believe in manmade climate change,” which is truth by democracy or, if you prefer, untruth.
There are scientific debates which are resolved, like Einstein over Newton and Evolution over Intelligent Design (which isn’t a theory that needs more work, but one that is inherently unscientific because it attempts to introduce a supernatural cause into science. Science is (paraphrasing Newton), the explanation of the world by natural laws admitting no supernatural or ‘other’ cause). Global warming isn’t one of these. It’s a nascent theory that is almost certainly wildly inaccurate, and possibly wholly wrong.
It doesn’t bother me as much when non-scientific people are irrational. They don’t claim to even like science and often argue against it in principle. That is an argument for a different time. But I find it unsettling that people who argue for the proliferation of science think of science as something dogmatic and inherently true. It’s not.
What I think is most disturbing about these people is that they’re not stupid, and their unknowing hypocrisy is nearly unavoidable. It’s something everyone does. We all have so many beliefs that we cling to, some of them are beliefs we used to have real reasons for believing, but have forgotten those reason, others are completely irrational. These beliefs are necessary to function, but even though it’s hard, many of the violent disagreements we might have, can appear much differently after the process of really breaking down an opinion to see if there’s any facts to support it. It’s an easy thing to do, but difficult because when it’s most important tends to be when aggression and anger is at its peak. Uncovering all of our irrationality is futile, but people who attempt it are far more pleasant to spend time with.



It should be pointed out that I do think greenhouse gases are responsible, at least in part, for the warming of the planet, but I'm certainly not qualified to make a definitive statement.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

The Internet and the Generational Divide

In the past fifty years, or perhaps always, or perhaps only in America the youth dismiss the old. The 60’s were full of people who rejected the beliefs of their parents and wanted to remake the world. They succeeded in advancing social rights, but failed to fundamentally change the world. They wanted to move humanity towards a Marxist ideal; to love each other and the Earth. The 70’s were a rejection of the 60’s. Fueled by cocaine and nihilism, they saw the birth of the pornography industry and a return to materialism in the lower classes. The cultural see-saw is a part of modern American history, but over the past decade, we’ve taken a bigger turn. We’ve changed the world and the ways we interact with each other faster than ever before. Perhaps, it’s such a big step that the see-saw has broken in half. The rise of the internet and social networking is so effects who we are as people and who are friends are that’s it’s easy to think that other invention of the 20th century, from the airplane to the tv, even compare. With anything new, however, it has created something in the older generations that resembles fear, distrust and, at times, hatred.
Much of the 20th century saw the change from people going out to do things, to people watching other people do things. This happened mostly because of the radio and TV. Without instant communication, following a sports team is difficult. With the invention of the radio and TV it became easier. You could even follow your team if you lived outside of the area. These revolution forms of media were the primers for what was to come. The birth of industrial farming fundamentally changed the way we shopped and ate. Instead of craving for mama’s famous lasagna we wanted a Big Mac with cheese (available in all 50 states!). Instead of shopping at local markets, we started buying the same products, from the same manufacturers all over the world. Industrial farming, for all of its evils, let strangers enter supermarkets in cities they’d never been before and discover an array of food just like wherever they came from. The Wright brothers invented human flight. A feat so astonishing it still captivates the imagination. People could quickly travel across the globe and visit relatives in foreign countries. The world was getting closer and more connected. Then in the 90’s PC’s became popular, and shortly after the internet came. Innocuous at first, it seemed like a way to communicate letters more rapidly than the postal service. By the turning of the century, however, it was on its way to being the most revolutionary form of communication since the printing press. The advancements of the 20th century which made people more connected than ever before have been put to shame by the simple, powerful tool that is the internet (yes I’m being a bit hyperbolic, but it’s the internet and I’m allowed to).
Anything as shockingly new as the internet will have its critics. There is a strong moral argument against it in part because of moments like me tonight. I am sitting in my kitchen by myself on a Saturday night. I’ve turned down offers to go out tonight. Instead I’m tweeting quotes from some pretentious drunk guy outside (yes I see the irony of called him pretentious), checking out my friends on Facebook, writing an essay for my blog and vaguely still trying to do research for my Immunology class. Doing all this I have in front of me a drink and a computer. Two word files are open, one with a collection of notes and the other with this essay. 10 years ago this would be considered anti-social and perhaps depressing behavior. I might have to go get checked for mental deficiencies. Now, even for the young and adventurous these nights are normal. The highlights of the parties are going to be on Facebook tomorrow and I can look at them and joke with my other friends. Maybe I’ll write on some people’s walls tonight just to see how they’re doing. I’m not alone am I? I’ll check my igoogle page and see if anyone’s on and wants to IM. I went out and saw a movie at the theater today. It cost 10 dollars and I could’ve just watched Netflix instant watch instead. Or torrented whatever I wanted. It would’ve been easier and cheaper. If I played an MMORPG I could log on at any time and find internet acquaintances or friends to hang out with. Maybe, if I get really drunk and bored I’ll do some online shopping or renew my expiring license plates.
It’s easy to see why the internet can scare people. The industrial revolution first introduced us to man working in close proximity with machinery. Since that time people have always been wary of technology. William Blake and the Transcendentalists tried to get away from it, movies like the Matrix, and Minority Report exploit those same fears. Technology is, however, so incredibly useful that it stays around despite its critics. The more the internet enables us to stay connected to people, the more we find ourselves connected to our technology. With cell phones becoming increasingly internet capable, and with our Bluetooths (Blueteeth?) always in our ear, there is no doubt that Generation Y, or whatever we’re called, is going to have more interaction with machines than any other generation ever.
The internet and texting have gone hand in hand in making our communication more verbal and less vocal, but what I think critics are afraid of, aside from the cliché that they fear what they don’t understand, is that we’re losing our abilities to communicate face to face. Tools often take more control of our lives than we mean for them to, and it may be that the future will have more written language than spoken. I doubt, however, that the internet can fill our need for human contact. Much of its function so far has been in increasing our social interactions. People who struggle with day to day interactions have new pathways to find similar people who also struggle dealing with ‘neurotypicals’ as one blogger with Aspergers calls others. Those who have what used to be crippling sexual fetishes can now find other of similar taste simply by typing a few words into a search box. The internet doesn’t hinder social well being, but rather allows for people who used to be outsiders, to find a way in. What the internet has done, more than anything else in the history of humankind, is it allows people to find their niche. It provides easy way for people to interact with minorities without embarrassment and anonymously, and it allows people to explore options they never thought they had.
Another complaint against the internet is that over the past five years, privacy no longer exists. Our personal moments are less personal because all of it is recorded somewhere online. Our past will follow us on facebook. Even deleted photos will remain. It will be interesting when all of our politicians will have pictures of them doing illicit drugs and drinking heavily floating around the internet. Rumors of Presidents and bad behavior will become proof. For myself, however, I feel as though people who grew up without the internet overvalue privacy. I don’t really care that google and facebook sell my information to advertisers. While I can appreciate the fears my Dad has about it, I can’t relate to the emotions behind it.
As with every technological advancement there will be people who’ll claim that it’s the end of the world. That humanity is lost and that the soul is being destroyed by these inventions. It’s been happening for a while now, and it seems as though the people are all right. The internet might have a few drawbacks, and it might change the world, but it won’t make it so different that humanity will be unrecognizable in fifty years. The fears that humanity will be isolated by the internet seem to be the opposite of true. Through it we can be more connected to people rather than less, but sometimes that connection just looks a little different. The point is that it’s not something to be feared, but better to understand it and see how it can improve your life.