 | The Bullroarer - Friday 8 February 2008 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | Climate Code Red: The Case for a Sustainability Emergency |  |
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
There are good reasons for short term-ism:
1. In the long run we are all dead.
2. Those who claim to be able to see the future long term are frequently wrong. The second coming of Christ has been proclaimed for over 2000 years and believed by many yet is completely wrong so far.
3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.
4. The long term is made up of a series of short terms. If the short terms do not support the long term thesis, few will believe the long term forecast. For example, if climate change does not occur in a straight line, which seems very likely to me, the periods of reversal will be taken are evidence that global warming is false. Similarly, periods of mitigation of Peak Oil by recession, bio fuels, and conservation will make Peak Oil look false to the average Joe.
I see manipulation all over the place. There are all sorts of folks who deny that climate change is even real. Everything to them is political, and those on the far right live in an alternate reality where the world conforms to their beliefs.
That's called people having different opinions, Eric.
Global warming is an hypothesis, one with quite a lot of support behind it and which I personally think is probably right, but it is not the word of God or something, and it is not remotely on the same level of implausibility to think that it may not be right as to be a creationist.
It is an attempt to describe a highly complex system with a great many variables, and in which it is hypothesised that the impact of greenhouse gasses is multiplied many times by mechanisms of which we have a poor understanding.
I happen to think that it is the best explanation we currently have, but dislike fundamentalism on either side of the argument, which seems to me simply absurd on when seeking to describe such a complicated system.
"...it is not the word of God or something,..."
When, how long ago, was the word of god something on which there was universal agreement? ;-)
On the present situation, I am puzzled about how one can expect smart people of good will to come to a consensus view. And suppose we do not limit the discussion to global warming as seems to have been done by Ian. Should we not also include peak oil in the statement of the problem?
If it was only people of good will that we needed to reach, the problem would be much less hopeless...
First order of business, get the peak oil issue to the forefront of public awareness and discourse.
Second order of business, start developing and IMPLEMENTING long term and shorter term demand and supply side plans
>1. In the long run we are all dead.
But our children, children's children, and suceeding generations are not.
>2. Those who claim to be able to see the future long term are frequently wrong. The second coming of Christ has been proclaimed for over 2000 years and believed by many yet is completely wrong so far.
Peak Oil, Energy, and other resource constraints are real.
Jesus Christ hs come back many times in true Christians who have taken to heart and mind the teachings of Jesus and tried to live their lives in the best tradition of Christianity (e.g. Quakers). They have suffered much persecution for their efforts. Wouldn't you think of Gandhi (although not a "Christian"), MLK, and George Fox were "second comings"? Jesus was not a savior in the sense of the realization of worldly goals, and neither have been the many true Christians that have followed him since.
>3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.
We should try more to get the word out. We may be surprised at how many understand. The problem is with the access to communication channels that will reach them. If we could secure those channels then we would want to target those markets by framing the discussion in terms that they would understand.
>4. The long term is made up of a series of short terms.
And long term interests often clash with short term ones. If you don't make it in the short-term, there is no long-term. People are going to cling ferociously to their competitive and comparative advantages and/or their niches in short-term going concerns. We need to couch solutions within the context that "nobuddy gets hurt". Such however, goes against human nature and nature itself, and will be viewed with suspicion especially if a person has something, everything, or a lot to lose.
You make yourself sound remarkably like one of 'The chosen people', and it is unclear why you feel that you happen to be the one in possession of the truth, and that you may be entirely mistaken in your wish to 'educate' those who disagree with you, by which you seem to mean to cause them to agree with you, rather than have any wish to encourage that diversity of thought and opinion which is the necessary result of any liberal education.
Your statement:
'3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.'
is remarkably patronising, and might cause the unkind to wonder whether you are possibly the one untrained in logic and independent reasoning, and have been 'easily manipulated'
A little more respect for others, and a little less self-satisfaction might make it less difficult for others to take your opinions seriously, and that is what they are, opinions, not some revealed truth you have brought down the mountain.
First of all, I want to make it clear that the quote you took exception to was not mine. I posted it in order to respond to it.
Secondly, when you write about "liberal" education, are you referring to "laissez-faire"?
I think that it is important to educate with the goal of trying to reach a consensus because we are all in this together and we will have to work together for any hope of acheiving a sustainable, equitable, peaceful world.
Apologies for the misunderstanding on the quote.
No,a liberal education is an entirely different things to laissez-faire.
I entirely dislike any use of the word 'education', when that is a cover to cause others to agree rather than encourage them to form thoughts which may be at variance , and which should more properly be termed indoctrination, since the conclusion is pre-ordained, so disagree strongly with the source you quote.
And the idea of reaching a 'consensus' is either threatening, as it is perfectly clear that by one means or another they intend that others shall be made to alter what they think, and have no intention of changing themselves, or entirely divorced from this world, possibly a little of both.
I certainly hope that there are many that I will never be in consensus with, but respect their divergence.
We are in a world of our peers, and any attempt to put oneself on high above others is entirely illegitimate.
Hi Dave,
I think that it is important to make all people aware of the problems that we face as we are all stewards of the earth and the future. Peak oil is a huge impending problem. I wish someone of Al Gore's stature would champion it.
After the awareness problem is overcome, then we will have a better chance to brainstorm and propose solutions (and there are solutions, but it certainly won't be easy).
I think that the "agree to disagree" philosophy is dangerous. That's how wars get started. But you are right, respecting all others as equals is imperative to progress relative to peace, equity, and sustainability.
Practical said
3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.
This is also true of all of our leaders and most of their advisors.
The forecasts don't have to be complex. If presented properly, peak oil can be a relatively simple concept.
Just how do you communicate your ideas to political candidates and their advisors?
I have submitted some concise policy ideas to Clinton and Obama websites, but the chance that they will get to them are nil.
Political candidates and their advisors are intelligent people. However, they have rose through the ranks by playing the game the way that the status quo wants them to play. Also, they always have at least one eye on the perceptions of targeted voting blocks. Both these items interfere with their ability for them to see that fundamental change, not incremental, will be necessary to deal with the extant and looming problems, including peak oil.
IMHO, "training" won't help.
The structure of the human brain is dictated by random and fickle forces of evolution. Our brains were not intelligently designed and they are not put together in a way that inherently leads to logic and reason.
Until we come into better grips with who and what we are (the structure and functioning of our brains), we don't stand much of a chance in correcting the situation. When it comes to social engineering, we are mostly dabbling in alchemy. The real chemistry has not yet emerged. We're still doing the fire, sky, earth and water thing. A periodic table of the brain has not been assembled.
I think a lot of us DO understand but as the quote which appears sometimes on the top right main page of "theoildrum" in words to the effect of :
"no man will understand something which goes against what his salasry depends on "
I am sorry I cant remember who said it, and quote it accurately enough to find it.
Which is why the HTML-savvy enclose such text in <blockquote>...</blockquote> structures, so this is clear to the reader.
Mike: It's my understanding, as a Quaker, that there is "that of God" in all of us; you, me, George Fox, King, etc. The labels that folks chose to assign to themselves or others mean little if anything in this respect.
Cheers
Hello Friend John,
According to George Fox:
"God" (or good) is within all people. It is incumbent upon us all to cultivate such within ourselves and others. "Christ within can speak to thy condition".
I agree that labels set borders, and wars start at the borders.
"2. Those who claim to be able to see the future long term are frequently wrong. The second coming of Christ has been proclaimed for over 2000 years and believed by many yet is completely wrong so far."
GREAT example of a scientific prediction proven completely wrong.
In fact, Keynes is currently dead. Altough the problems people pointed on his policies did come and made a lot of harm.