Monday, May 30, 2011
Self Talk - the Human Adaptation
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
It is natural
A beaver dam is part of the natural environment. The CO2 being released into the environment by the burning of fossil fuels is a part of the natural environment. Automobiles are part of the natural environment. The space shuttle is a part of the natural environment.
Some of these statements are bound to ruffle a few enviro and eco feathers.
Many people believe that humans are not separate from the web of life but are an integral part of it. Yet, they arbitrarily draw lines eliminating some human activities as not natural.
We protect the bald eagle with its sharp eyes, high soaring and sharp talons. They would celebrate these genetic tools. We would defend the beaver’s right to build dams. We could argue that it is an ecological process of enrichment and regrowth; not destructive and besides it is the genetically determined tools that have evolved. There is probably no animal or plant that we would demean for the tools it uses to be effective and survive. These tools allow it efficacy and control.
Yet we humans do nothing more or less than the eagle and the beaver. We use our evolved faculties in the same way. Although I don’t consider tool development and use to be the defining factor of being human, it is obviously a component or off shoot of the faculties that have evolved in the generation of our species. All humans make and use tools.
Most of our tools and activities have analogs (similarities) in nature. When the impatiens flower has gone to seed, the structure holding the seeds is under tension. The slightest jarring will spring the structure open, exploding the seeds far from the plant. This is only one of many mechanisms that life uses to spread itself into new environments. How in the long run is the space shuttle different?
Many plants will release chemicals into the soil around them to discourage, if not kill, other invading plants. There are many insects that use various methods to protect themselves and their territory; i.e., camouflage or poisons. And, of course, there are urine markings of territory by dogs and other animals. How does this differ from fences, deeds, copyrights, patents, and wars to protect territories that we humans use?
Perhaps for some people they can hold the distinction between humans being a natural, integral part of the natural environment and some but not all of there activities also being a part of the natural environment, I get confused where to draw the line. More importantly by separating some of our activities from our naturalness, we move it away from us. It allows us to throw up our hands in dismay. It allows us to deny responsibility.
This is the rub. If we do not accept that all we do is a natural outcome of our innate abilities, then we can claim a lack of control, an inertia to the technological process, an innocence to whatever the outcomes of our activities. This attitude I believe prevails among the many peoples of the industrialized nations. It provides a subtle shift that allows non-responsibility.
There is a popular fiction among many environmental thinkers that if we could only live more naturally, things would be better. This usually means some minimal use of tools - from gathering and hunting to rudimentary agriculture. This is both a denial of our inherent aptitude and a move away from responsibility for all of our behavior.
It is not my purpose here to say all technology is good or bad. This is mute question if it is natural. The environment both locally and globally respond to our activities just as it does to prairie fires from lightening strikes, the natural rhythms of global climate or the earth being struck by a large meteor.
Responsibility is at the core of this essay. We are an incredibly successful animal (thus far) with genetic tools that allow powerful change. We have all the drives for species survival and reproduction of any other animal. We deny in a subtle way that we are part of nature by denying that are various means of survival are part of the ongoing evolution in nature. This allows a blind spot that is very dangerous, because we can shirk responsibility saying, “the devil made me do it.”
Next:
If we accept the whole of our participation on the earth taking responsibility for it as part of our powerful survival abilities, this raises several questions.
1. What are our tools that are the equivalent of the hawk’s eyes, talons and soaring ability?
2. If we assess a danger to our impact on the earth how do we choose an approach or measure for sustainability?
3. Are there clues that we must rein in our technology and become responsible for it?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Just Say I
I am polluting our ground water by using the natural gas from fracking. I am creating havoc in the oceans by spilling life-killing oil. I am also plasticizing the oceans. I am also limiting or eliminating species after species in the ocean, on the land, in the air. I am putting my medicines into the rivers and the water supply. I am greedily creating food sources that only I control. I am removing the topsoil. I am gouging huge holes in the earth. I am burning coal and creating nuclear waste for thousands of years to come for my flat screen television, my computer and my DVD player. I am putting mercury and acids into the air, water and life. I am melting the ice caps and the glaciers. I am heating the planet to drive my snowmobile, my wave runner, and my four-wheeler and to drive to any damn place I want. I am using many people to cater to my many whims.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The New Middle Ages
With great sadness, we must recognize the direct connection between present day population levels and the use of fossil fuels in food production, medical procedures, medicines and hygiene. With the fall in fossil fuel availability there will be a reduction in population. Population soared with the industrial revolution and the development of industrial, fossil fuel based agriculture. It cannot be sustained.
I will try not to reinvent the wheel. There are many well researched and written works on these issues. I provide references to works that underline points I am making. (See both POPULATION and PETROLEUM PRODUCTS listings in the bibliography.)
We need to celebrate our inventiveness and wonderment. We must also recognize there will be losses of people that will evoke great grieving. There will be losses of dreams. There will be great stresses causing both physical and emotional pain. We must honor these in each person. We must not get trapped in these, seeking a control through blaming others or ourselves, through seeking scapegoats or self-flagellation. Humans have a history of this during times of great losses (black death of the Middle Ages). We must beware.
The Middle Ages have been given somewhat of a bad rap. Yes, there was little buffer from year to year for the bulk of humanity against hunger and famine. Medicine was primitive and poorly conceived. Hygiene was not understood. And yes, there were the rich that controlled and took from the poor. Most of humanity worked very hard to make daily living work.
However, let me suggest that this future without fossil fuels may not be significantly different from present once we work through the inevitable losses and grieving. In an Excel spread sheet I created in 2000 looking at the per capita use by country of petroleum, natural gas and electricity, some 75 to 80 per cent of the population had very little use of fossil fuels. Many people today work hand to mouth and lived on the edge with hunger, low energy accessibility, poor water resources and fragile shelter. What is in process is the great leveling of globalization. Many of us will be joining the peasant class.
Through history there seems to be a distribution of wealth and privilege that looks something like:
0.1% Dynastic Oligarchs
1% Administrators (in today’s world - CEOs, Presidents, Fed chairman, etc.)
10 to 15% Functionary Workers (this would be most who are reading this now)
80 to 90% Peasants (Wage Slaves in debt-bondage)
[I had presented something like this to one of my mailing lists and it was modified close to what I am presenting by someone on the list. I did not keep their name. I thank them.]
Today is no different. As I indicated globalization is the new leveling and pathway to peasanthood given the peaking and ultimate depletion of fossil fuels and other resources.
Comments about work and worker control in the Middle Ages are quite interesting.
“ . . . By 1338 Florence was importing 10,000 lengths of cloth while manufacturing 80, 000. . . .
The banking and commercial techniques of the merchant capitalists of Florence effectively enslaved the majority of the thirty thousand textile workers of the city. Describing such medieval conditions, Arnold Hauser in The Social History of Art wrote that
The raising of the output demanded a more intensive exploitation of the available labour, a progressive division of labour and the gradual mechanization of labour methods, by which is to be understood not merely the introduction of machines, but also the depersonalization of human work, the valuation of the worker purely in terms of the output achieved. Nothing expresses the economic philosophy of this new age more trenchantly than precisely this materialistic approach, which estimates a man according to his achievement and the output according to its value in money - the – which, other words, turns the worker into a mere link in a complicated system of investments and financial yields, of risks and of profit and loss, of assets and liabilities.
. . . The assembly-line system of today is criticized in that the workman is only a cog, an element separated – in effect, alienated – from the final, complete product. The Florentine textile workers were alienated, too, and for the same reasons. And they had the added frustration of the entrepreneurs’ refusal to let them form an association. Their bosses knew only too well what power such organizations could offer, for their own power was itself largely founded on the associations or guilds of the Florentine ruling classes.
In order to hold this urban proletariat in check . . . introduce(d) . . .the truck system, which consisted in granting advances in goods or money to be repaid later in work, the goods themselves being, of course, generally overvalued. This chained the workman to his employer.“
Pg. 104-105. Gimpel, Jean. 1975. The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages. Penguin. N.Y.
What I find absolutely fascinating is that the “truck system” (the company store of “Sixteen Tons” by Tennessee Ernie Ford) is at work today. Buy, buy, buy. Credit cards, house loans, new cars. Right after 9/11, the president of the United States of America was telling people to buy, buy, buy. Can you quit your job with all this debt? Do you think this is free will? In 2007, $149 billion was spent on advertising in the United States alone. Psychologists, ad people, sociologist get paid top money to convenience you and I to buy, buy, buy on credit.
Another interesting comparison is environmental concerns. We are gouging the earth, polluting the oceans, messing with the ground water, perhaps changing the climate, creating plastic beaches by plastic debris in the oceans and creating all kinds of toxic as well as nuclear material. The past had its own salting of land from irrigation, pollution of rivers and fouling of the air from burning as well as serious resource depletion. Here are two interesting pieces from history. The first is earlier than the Middle Ages.
“Population, fueled by agriculture, rose in an upward moving curve. In a repeating ecological pattern, our growing numbers exhausted the land, strained and polluted the water, depleted the forests, and crowded people into unhealthy conditions. Under these pressures, some people relocated using their feet, the wheel and domesticated energy in the form of animals. Or they died of starvation or pestilence or killed each other off.
One of the early Church Fathers, Tertullian (c. A.D. 160 - 240), commented on the effects of human enterprise on the earth: “Farms have replaced wastelands, cultivated land has subdued the forests, cattle have put to flight the wild beast, barren lands have become fertile, rocks have become soil, swamps have been drained, and the number of cities exceeds the number of poor huts found in former times . . . Everywhere there are people, communities - everywhere there is human life!” To such a point that “the world is full. The elements scarcely suffice us. Our needs press . . . Pestilence, famine, wars, [earthquakes] are intended, indeed, as remedies, as prunings, against the growth of the human race.”
(Gies, Frances and Gies, Joseph. 1994. Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel. Harper Collins. N.Y. p. 6.)
The second is directly in the Middle Ages.
“The building of thousands of furnaces in hundreds of medieval forests to satisfy the extensive demand for iron was a major cause of deforestation. . . . From the very beginning, the fuel used was charcoal, the black porous residue of burned wood. . . . The extent of the damage caused by iron smelters to forests can be appreciated when one realizes that to obtain 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of iron it was necessary at that time to reduce approximately 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of iron ore with as much as 25 steres (25 cubic meters) (883 cubic feet) of wood. It has been estimated that in forty days, one furnace could level the forest for a radius of 1 kilometer (over a square mile.)”
Pg. 79. Gimpel, Jean. 1975. The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle
Ages. Penguin. N.Y.
It is the scope of the changes and environmental degradation that makes this a very different human experience. It is global.
A misconception of the Middle Ages was that it was a time of no learning or creativity – a dark ages. However:
“Over the past forty years, historians have increasingly recognized that technological development “took off” in the medieval and early modern West . . . The “dry” compass, mechanical clock, firearms, and the printing press – all medieval inventions . . . More mundane inventions including new agricultural methods, the wheelbarrow, the spinning wheel, the chimney, and eye glasses, had significant and long-lasting effects on European society. Medieval people also adapted older technologies, such as the watermill and windmill, the stirrup, and gunpowder, to new uses.”
Pg. 111. Whitney, Elspeth. 2004. Medieval Science and Technology. Greenwood Press. London.
“Watermills proliferated in the Middle Ages. As early as the late eleventh century, southern England had over 5,600 mills in approximately 3,000 communities. By about 13000, England had over 9,000 watermills and at least 3,000 windmills. . . . By the fourteenth century, Paris had sixty-eight mills less than a mile from the center of the city. . . .
. . . During the High and late Middle Ages, water-driven mills were adapted to pound hemp, saw wood, make paper, grind grain and pigments, sift flour, strip bark, press grapes for wind and olives for oil, tan leather, forge iron, , prepare cloth, and power bellow used in furnaces. Of these, fulling cloth, the process which cleaned, strengthened, and tightened the weave of woolen or linen cloth, probably had the most sustained economic impact. . . . “
pg. 116-117. Whitney, Elspeth. 2004. Medieval Science and Technology. Greenwood Press. London.
Many of these techniques and technologies will be available to us to provide food, clothing, tools and housing. We will be able to mine the carcass of civilization for many decades. Metal and materials already extracted and processed wait our turning them into useful tools.
We can go kicking and screaming into the new peasanthood or we can plan and learn. We need to assess what medicine and medical technologies can be carried into this new world of less per capita energy. We need to not lose the reams of knowledge that have been gleaned by the hard work of research by tens of thousands of us learning about our world and how it functions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ball, Warwick. 2010. Out of Arabia. Olive Branch. Great Britain.
Brimblecombe, P. and Pfister, C. (editors). The Silent Countdown. Springer-Verlag. N.Y.
Cipolla, Carlo. 1967. The Economic History of World Population. Penguin Books. Baltimore, MD.
Clark, Wilson. 1975. Energy for Survival. Anchor Books. N.Y.
Catton, William. 1980. Overshoot.. University of Illinois Press. Chicago.
Chefurka, Paul. 2007. Population The Elephant in the Room. http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
Cohen, Mark Nathan. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. Yale University Press. New Haven.
Gies, Frances; Gies, Joseph. 1994. Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel. Harper Collins. N.Y.
Hauser, Arnold. 1951. The Social History of Art. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London.
Le Goff, J. 1980. Time,Work, & Culture in the Middle Ages. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Mollat, M. 1986. The Poor in the Middle Ages. Yale. New Haven.
Newman, F. 1986. Social Unrest in the Late Middle Ages. Bhinghamton. N.Y.
Odum, Howard T. and Odum, Elisabeth C. 1976. Energy Basis for Man and Nature. McGraw-Hill Book Co. N. Y.
Pfeiffer, Alan. 2003. Eating Fossil Fuels. New Society. Canada.
Postan, M. 1973. Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy. Cambridge.
Price, David. 1995. Energy and Human Evolution. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
Ross, S. John . 2008. Medieval Demographics Made Easy. http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm
Steinhart, Carol E. and John Steinhart. 1974. The Fires of Culture. Duxbury Press. Mass.
Steinhart, John and Carol Steinhart. 1974. “Energy Use in the U.S. Food System”. in Science 184:307-316, 19 April.
Tuchman, Barbara. 1978. A Distant Mirror. Knopf. N. Y.
Watzlawick,P.; Weakland, J; and Risch, R. 1974. Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. Norton. N.Y.
White, Lynn. 1978. Medieval Religion and Technology. Univ. of California Press. Berkeley.
Whitney, Elspeth. 2004. Medieval Science and Technology. Greenwood Press. London.
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Petroleum Products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_product
ProductsfromPetroleum http://peakoil.com/consumption/things-you-didnt-know-were-made-of-oil/
POPULATION
Chefurka, Paul. 2007. Population The Elephant in the Room. http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
Catton, William. 1980. Overshoot.. University of Illinois Press. Chicago.
Cipolla, Carlo. 1967. The Economic History of World Population. Penguin Books. Baltimore, MD.
McCluney, Ross. 2004. “How Many People Should the Earth Support?” from Humanity's Environmental Future: Making Sense in a Troubled World. SunPine Press, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Pfeiffer, Alan. 2003. Eating Fossil Fuels. New Society. Canada.
Steinhart, Carol E. and John Steinhart. 1974. The Fires of Culture. Duxbury Press. Mass.
Steinhart, John and Carol Steinhart. 1974. “Energy Use in the U.S. Food System”. in Science 184:307-316, 19 April.
Here are some of my blog essays of interest perhaps.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/02/curmudgeon-report.html
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/01/energy-in-real-world.html
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2010/05/superman-plays-with-kryptonite-dice.html
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/03/do-lemmings-grieve.html
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Time to wake up
Time to wake up: Days of abundant resources and falling prices are over forever
by Jeremy Grantham
Published by The Oil Drum on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 08:00
Original article:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7853
Published on Energy Bulletin
http://www.energybulletin.net/print/57163Sunday, April 24, 2011
Business As Usual
A local manufacturer of solar hot air heating panels has received millions of dollars in federal money to put these panels on low income homes. They received a 2.2 million dollar federal grant. Earlier this year, the same company received a 300 thousand dollar federal grant to build a manufacturing facility.
It is the installing of this fluff that I find a waste.
This is the editorial comment I sent to the newspaper:
To Tell the Truth
The 600 megawatts of annual energy from the RREAL solar “furnaces” does not subtract the necessary fossil fuels, heavy equipment and toxic chemicals to extract the minerals (coal, copper, aluminum, etc), process, transport, manufacture parts, transport, assemble, transport, install and run the necessary blower. So this is a misleading number. To see pictures of some of the equipment necessary - http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/01/energy-in-real-world.html
To give the numbers in megawatts seem to imply electricity is made. It is heat only. And this number is a computer estimate; it may be more or it may be less. Figured in gallons of propane – it is 80 per year; in fuel oil, 60 per year. Money payback? A decade? To payback the energy expend to make them – a decade? Wise use of resources?
These devices with their heavy use of fossil fuels, materials are not green nor clean. There are massive machines that gouge the earth for these materials. With fossil fuels becoming more and more precious both geologically and politically, these devices are not sustainable. And because they cannot reproduce themselves without fossil fuels, they are not renewable.
These devices work only part of the year, during the winter. These devices work only part of part of the year - no sun at night or cloudy days, no heat. No electricity because of storms, no heat.
I am not being mean spirited about the poor. These homes have been upgraded with insulation as well as windows and doors where needed by the federal weatherization project. I ran the first weatherization program in Minnesota back in the mid 1970s. A program I still support.
Our state and federal budget are hemorrhaging, yet we are funding millions for these impractical, feel good devices instead of infrastructure like roads, sewage, bridges, water systems.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Don't Confuse Me With the Facts
Having thought about the energy and environmental future for over 40 years, I have two main concerns. One is NOT our physical ability and creativeness to cope with less energy and other resources. We are an incredibly resourceful animal.
My two concerns are population and tribalism. We must figure out how to separate pleasure from reproduction or no matter what comes down the pike, it will be same old, same old. We will overshoot again and again like all life.
Tribalism, us against them, is a natural part of being a necessarily social animal. With any restriction of resources, real or imagined, this divisiveness will raise its head. Couple population overshoot potential and tribalism and nothing changes. Religion could save us (not necessary existing ones) but may well be the hammer of the future.
This article from Mother Jones need not to have been about science. It applies to all our belief for most of us. There are life circumstances that facilitate this myopia but that is the subject of another essay.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link.
By Chris Mooney | Mon Apr. 18, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger [1] (PDF), in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. But it was too early for that—this was the 1950s—and Festinger was actually describing a famous case study [2] in psychology.
Festinger and several of his colleagues had infiltrated the Seekers, a small Chicago-area cult whose members thought they were communicating with aliens—including one, "Sananda," who they believed was the astral incarnation of Jesus Christ. The group was led by Dorothy Martin, a Dianetics devotee who transcribed the interstellar messages through automatic writing.
Through her, the aliens had given the precise date of an Earth-rending cataclysm: December 21, 1954. Some of Martin's followers quit their jobs and sold their property, expecting to be rescued by a flying saucer when the continent split asunder and a new sea swallowed much of the United States. The disciples even went so far as to remove brassieres and rip zippers out of their trousers—the metal, they believed, would pose a danger on the spacecraft.
Festinger and his team were with the cult when the prophecy failed. First, the "boys upstairs" (as the aliens were sometimes called) did not show up and rescue the Seekers. Then December 21 arrived without incident. It was the moment Festinger had been waiting for: How would people so emotionally invested in a belief system react, now that it had been soundly refuted?
At first, the group struggled for an explanation. But then rationalization set in. A new message arrived, announcing that they'd all been spared at the last minute. Festinger summarized the extraterrestrials' new pronouncement: "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction." Their willingness to believe in the prophecy had saved Earth from the prophecy!
From that day forward, the Seekers, previously shy of the press and indifferent toward evangelizing, began to proselytize. "Their sense of urgency was enormous," wrote Festinger. The devastation of all they had believed had made them even more certain of their beliefs.
In the annals of denial, it doesn't get much more extreme than the Seekers. They lost their jobs, the press mocked them, and there were efforts to keep them away from impressionable young minds. But while Martin's space cult might lie at on the far end of the spectrum of human self-delusion, there's plenty to go around. And since Festinger's day, an array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called "motivated reasoning [3]" helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, "death panels," the birthplace and religion of the president [4] (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.
The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience [5] (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call "affect"). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of milliseconds—fast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we're aware of it. That shouldn't be surprising: Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It's a "basic human survival skill," explains political scientist Arthur Lupia [6] of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
We're not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn't take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that's highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
Consider a person who has heard about a scientific discovery that deeply challenges her belief in divine creation—a new hominid, say, that confirms our evolutionary origins. What happens next, explains political scientist Charles Taber [7] of Stony Brook University, is a subconscious negative response to the new information—and that response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations formed in the conscious mind. "They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs," says Taber, "and that will lead them to build an argument and challenge what they're hearing."
In other words, when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt [8]: We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers [9] (PDF). Our "reasoning" is a means to a predetermined end—winning our "case"—and is shot through with biases. They include "confirmation bias," in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and "disconfirmation bias," in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial.
That's a lot of jargon, but we all understand these mechanisms when it comes to interpersonal relationships. If I don't want to believe that my spouse is being unfaithful, or that my child is a bully, I can go to great lengths to explain away behavior that seems obvious to everybody else—everybody who isn't too emotionally invested to accept it, anyway. That's not to suggest that we aren't also motivated to perceive the world accurately—we are. Or that we never change our minds—we do. It's just that we have other important goals besides accuracy—including identity affirmation and protecting one's sense of self—and often those make us highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should.
Modern science originated from an attempt to weed out such subjective lapses—what that great 17th century theorist of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, dubbed the "idols of the mind." Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.
Scientific evidence is highly susceptible to misinterpretation. Giving ideologues scientific data that's relevant to their beliefs is like unleashing them in the motivated-reasoning equivalent of a candy store.
Our individual responses to the conclusions that science reaches, however, are quite another matter. Ironically, in part because researchers employ so much nuance and strive to disclose all remaining sources of uncertainty, scientific evidence is highly susceptible to selective reading and misinterpretation. Giving ideologues or partisans scientific data that's relevant to their beliefs is like unleashing them in the motivated-reasoning equivalent of a candy store.
Sure enough, a large number of psychological studies have shown that people respond to scientific or technical evidence in ways that justify their preexisting beliefs. In a classic 1979 experiment [10] (PDF), pro- and anti-death penalty advocates were exposed to descriptions of two fake scientific studies: one supporting and one undermining the notion that capital punishment deters violent crime and, in particular, murder. They were also shown detailed methodological critiques of the fake studies—and in a scientific sense, neither study was stronger than the other. Yet in each case, advocates more heavily criticized the study whose conclusions disagreed with their own, while describing the study that was more ideologically congenial as more "convincing."
Since then, similar results have been found for how people respond to "evidence" about affirmative action, gun control, the accuracy of gay stereotypes [11], and much else. Even when study subjects are explicitly instructed to be unbiased and even-handed about the evidence, they often fail.
And it's not just that people twist or selectively read scientific evidence to support their preexisting views. According to research by Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan [12] and his colleagues, people's deep-seated views about morality, and about the way society should be ordered, strongly predict whom they consider to be a legitimate scientific expert in the first place—and thus where they consider "scientific consensus" to lie on contested issues.
In Kahan's research [13] (PDF), individuals are classified, based on their cultural values, as either "individualists" or "communitarians," and as either "hierarchical" or "egalitarian" in outlook. (Somewhat oversimplifying, you can think of hierarchical individualists as akin to conservative Republicans, and egalitarian communitarians as liberal Democrats.) In one study, subjects in the different groups were asked to help a close friend determine the risks associated with climate change, sequestering nuclear waste, or concealed carry laws: "The friend tells you that he or she is planning to read a book about the issue but would like to get your opinion on whether the author seems like a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert." A subject was then presented with the résumé of a fake expert "depicted as a member of the National Academy of Sciences who had earned a Ph.D. in a pertinent field from one elite university and who was now on the faculty of another." The subject was then shown a book excerpt by that "expert," in which the risk of the issue at hand was portrayed as high or low, well-founded or speculative. The results were stark: When the scientist's position stated that global warming is real and human-caused, for instance, only 23 percent of hierarchical individualists agreed the person was a "trustworthy and knowledgeable expert." Yet 88 percent of egalitarian communitarians accepted the same scientist's expertise. Similar divides were observed on whether nuclear waste can be safely stored underground and whether letting people carry guns deters crime. (The alliances did not always hold. In another study [14] (PDF), hierarchs and communitarians were in favor of laws that would compel the mentally ill to accept treatment, whereas individualists and egalitarians were opposed.)
Head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.
In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario. A hierarchal individualist finds it difficult to believe that the things he prizes (commerce, industry, a man's freedom to possess a gun to defend his family [14]) (PDF) could lead to outcomes deleterious to society. Whereas egalitarian communitarians tend to think that the free market causes harm, that patriarchal families mess up kids, and that people can't handle their guns. The study subjects weren't "anti-science"—not in their own minds, anyway. It's just that "science" was whatever they wanted it to be. "We've come to a misadventure, a bad situation where diverse citizens, who rely on diverse systems of cultural certification, are in conflict," says Kahan [15].
And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.
Take, for instance, the question of whether Saddam Hussein possessed hidden weapons of mass destruction just before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. When political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler showed subjects fake newspaper articles [16] (PDF) in which this was first suggested (in a 2004 quote from President Bush) and then refuted (with the findings of the Bush-commissioned Iraq Survey Group report, which found no evidence of active WMD programs in pre-invasion Iraq), they found that conservatives were more likely than before to believe the claim. (The researchers also tested how liberals responded when shown that Bush did not actually "ban" embryonic stem-cell research. Liberals weren't particularly amenable to persuasion, either, but no backfire effect was observed.)
Another study gives some inkling of what may be going through people's minds when they resist persuasion. Northwestern University sociologist Monica Prasad [17] and her colleagues wanted to test whether they could dislodge the notion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were secretly collaborating among those most likely to believe it—Republican partisans from highly GOP-friendly counties. So the researchers set up a study [18] (PDF) in which they discussed the topic with some of these Republicans in person. They would cite the findings of the 9/11 Commission, as well as a statement in which George W. Bush himself denied his administration had "said the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda."
One study showed that not even Bush's own words could change the minds of Bush voters who believed there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
As it turned out, not even Bush's own words could change the minds of these Bush voters—just 1 of the 49 partisans who originally believed the Iraq-Al Qaeda claim changed his or her mind. Far more common was resisting the correction in a variety of ways, either by coming up with counterarguments or by simply being unmovable:
Interviewer: [T]he September 11 Commission found no link between Saddam and 9/11, and this is what President Bush said. Do you have any comments on either of those?
Respondent: Well, I bet they say that the Commission didn't have any proof of it but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that.
The same types of responses are already being documented on divisive topics facing the current administration. Take the "Ground Zero mosque." Using information from the political myth-busting site FactCheck.org [19], a team at Ohio State presented subjects [20] (PDF) with a detailed rebuttal to the claim that "Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam backing the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque, is a terrorist-sympathizer." Yet among those who were aware of the rumor and believed it, fewer than a third changed their minds.
A key question—and one that's difficult to answer—is how "irrational" all this is. On the one hand, it doesn't make sense to discard an entire belief system, built up over a lifetime, because of some new snippet of information. "It is quite possible to say, 'I reached this pro-capital-punishment decision based on real information that I arrived at over my life,'" explains Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick [21]. Indeed, there's a sense in which science denial could be considered keenly "rational." In certain conservative communities, explains Yale's Kahan, "People who say, 'I think there's something to climate change,' that's going to mark them out as a certain kind of person, and their life is going to go less well."
This may help explain a curious pattern Nyhan and his colleagues found when they tried to test the fallacy [4] (PDF) that President Obama is a Muslim. When a nonwhite researcher was administering their study, research subjects were amenable to changing their minds about the president's religion and updating incorrect views. But when only white researchers were present, GOP survey subjects in particular were more likely to believe the Obama Muslim myth than before. The subjects were using "social desirabililty" to tailor their beliefs (or stated beliefs, anyway) to whoever was listening.
Which leads us to the media. When people grow polarized over a body of evidence, or a resolvable matter of fact, the cause may be some form of biased reasoning, but they could also be receiving skewed information to begin with—or a complicated combination of both. In the Ground Zero mosque case, for instance, a follow-up study [22] (PDF) showed that survey respondents who watched Fox News were more likely to believe the Rauf rumor and three related ones—and they believed them more strongly than non-Fox watchers.
Okay, so people gravitate toward information that confirms what they believe, and they select sources that deliver it. Same as it ever was, right? Maybe, but the problem is arguably growing more acute, given the way we now consume information—through the Facebook links of friends, or tweets that lack nuance or context, or "narrowcast [23]" and often highly ideological media that have relatively small, like-minded audiences. Those basic human survival skills of ours, says Michigan's Arthur Lupia, are "not well-adapted to our information age."
A predictor of whether you accept the science of global warming? Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.
If you wanted to show how and why fact is ditched in favor of motivated reasoning, you could find no better test case than climate change. After all, it's an issue where you have highly technical information on one hand and very strong beliefs on the other. And sure enough, one key predictor of whether you accept the science of global warming is whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. The two groups have been growing more divided in their views about the topic, even as the science becomes more unequivocal.
So perhaps it should come as no surprise that more education doesn't budge Republican views. On the contrary: In a 2008 Pew survey [24], for instance, only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college educated Republicans. In other words, a higher education correlated with an increased likelihood of denying the science on the issue. Meanwhile, among Democrats and independents, more education correlated with greater acceptance of the science.
Other studies have shown a similar effect: Republicans who think they understand the global warming issue best are least concerned about it; and among Republicans and those with higher levels of distrust of science in general, learning more about the issue doesn't increase one's concern about it. What's going on here? Well, according to Charles Taber and Milton Lodge of Stony Brook, one insidious aspect of motivated reasoning is that political sophisticates are prone to be more biased than those who know less about the issues. "People who have a dislike of some policy—for example, abortion—if they're unsophisticated they can just reject it out of hand," says Lodge. "But if they're sophisticated, they can go one step further and start coming up with counterarguments." These individuals are just as emotionally driven and biased as the rest of us, but they're able to generate more and better reasons to explain why they're right—and so their minds become harder to change.
That may be why the selectively quoted emails of Climategate were so quickly and easily seized upon by partisans as evidence of scandal. Cherry-picking is precisely the sort of behavior you would expect motivated reasoners to engage in to bolster their views—and whatever you may think about Climategate, the emails were a rich trove of new information upon which to impose one's ideology.
Climategate had a substantial impact on public opinion, according to Anthony Leiserowitz [25], director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication [26]. It contributed to an overall drop in public concern about climate change and a significant loss of trust in scientists. But—as we should expect by now—these declines were concentrated among particular groups of Americans: Republicans, conservatives, and those with "individualistic" values. Liberals and those with "egalitarian" values didn't lose much trust in climate science or scientists at all. "In some ways, Climategate was like a Rorschach test," Leiserowitz says, "with different groups interpreting ambiguous facts in very different ways."
Is there a case study of science denial that largely occupies the political left? Yes: the claim that childhood vaccines are causing an epidemic of autism.
So is there a case study of science denial that largely occupies the political left? Yes: the claim that childhood vaccines are causing an epidemic of autism. Its most famous proponents are an environmentalist (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. [27]) and numerous Hollywood celebrities (most notably Jenny McCarthy [28] and Jim Carrey). The Huffington Post gives a very large megaphone to denialists. And Seth Mnookin [29], author of the new book The Panic Virus [30], notes that if you want to find vaccine deniers, all you need to do is go hang out at Whole Foods.
Vaccine denial has all the hallmarks of a belief system that's not amenable to refutation. Over the past decade, the assertion that childhood vaccines are driving autism rates has been undermined [31] by multiple epidemiological studies—as well as the simple fact that autism rates continue to rise, even though the alleged offending agent in vaccines (a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal) has long since been removed.
Yet the true believers persist—critiquing each new study that challenges their views, and even rallying to the defense of vaccine-autism researcher Andrew Wakefield, after his 1998 Lancet paper [32]—which originated the current vaccine scare—was retracted and he subsequently lost his license [33] (PDF) to practice medicine. But then, why should we be surprised? Vaccine deniers created their own partisan media, such as the website Age of Autism, that instantly blast out critiques and counterarguments whenever any new development casts further doubt on anti-vaccine views.
It all raises the question: Do left and right differ in any meaningful way when it comes to biases in processing information, or are we all equally susceptible?
There are some clear differences. Science denial today is considerably more prominent on the political right—once you survey climate and related environmental issues, anti-evolutionism, attacks on reproductive health science by the Christian right, and stem-cell and biomedical matters. More tellingly, anti-vaccine positions are virtually nonexistent among Democratic officeholders today—whereas anti-climate-science views are becoming monolithic among Republican elected officials.
Some researchers have suggested that there are psychological differences between the left and the right that might impact responses to new information—that conservatives are more rigid and authoritarian, and liberals more tolerant of ambiguity. Psychologist John Jost of New York University has further argued that conservatives are "system justifiers": They engage in motivated reasoning to defend the status quo.
This is a contested area, however, because as soon as one tries to psychoanalyze inherent political differences, a battery of counterarguments emerges: What about dogmatic and militant communists? What about how the parties have differed through history? After all, the most canonical case of ideologically driven science denial is probably the rejection of genetics in the Soviet Union, where researchers disagreeing with the anti-Mendelian scientist (and Stalin stooge) Trofim Lysenko were executed, and genetics itself was denounced as a "bourgeois" science and officially banned.
The upshot: All we can currently bank on is the fact that we all have blinders in some situations. The question then becomes: What can be done to counteract human nature itself?
We all have blinders in some situations. The question then becomes: What can be done to counteract human nature?
Given the power of our prior beliefs to skew how we respond to new information, one thing is becoming clear: If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.
This theory is gaining traction in part because of Kahan's work at Yale. In one study [34], he and his colleagues packaged the basic science of climate change into fake newspaper articles bearing two very different headlines—"Scientific Panel Recommends Anti-Pollution Solution to Global Warming" and "Scientific Panel Recommends Nuclear Solution to Global Warming"—and then tested how citizens with different values responded. Sure enough, the latter framing made hierarchical individualists much more open to accepting the fact that humans are causing global warming. Kahan infers that the effect occurred because the science had been written into an alternative narrative that appealed to their pro-industry worldview.
You can follow the logic to its conclusion: Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader, who can set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue. Doing so is, effectively, to signal a détente in what Kahan has called a "culture war of fact." In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.
Source URL: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
Links: [1] https://motherjones.com/files/lfestinger.pdf [2] http://www.powells.com/biblio/61-9781617202803-1 [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2270237 [4] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/obama-muslim.pdf [5] https://motherjones.com/files/descartes.pdf [6] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lupia/ [7] http://www.stonybrook.edu/polsci/ctaber/ [8] http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/ [9] https://motherjones.com/files/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf [10] http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/lord_ross_lepper79_JPSP_biased-assimilation-and-attitude-polarization.pdf [11] http://psp.sagepub.com/content/23/6/636.abstract [12] http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/DKahan.htm [13] https://motherjones.com/files/kahan_paper_cultural_cognition_of_scientific_consesus.pdf [14] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=fss_papers [15] http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/blogs/communicatingclimate/transcripts/Episode_10b_Dan_Kahan.html [16] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf [17] http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/faculty/prasad/home.html [18] http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf [19] http://www.factcheck.org/ [20] http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/FactcheckMosqueRumors.pdf [21] http://communication.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/ [22] http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf [23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowcasting [24] http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming [25] http://environment.yale.edu/profile/leiserowitz/ [26] http://environment.yale.edu/climate/ [27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html [28] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-mccarthy/vaccine-autism-debate_b_806857.html [29] http://sethmnookin.com/ [30] http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781439158647-0 [31] http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on/article_print [32] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext [33] http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf [34] http://www.scribd.com/doc/3446682/The-Second-National-Risk-and-Culture-Study-Making-Sense-of-and-Making-Progress-In-The-American-Culture-War-of-Fact