Science would be complicated and
distorted by being given a
sociopsychological twist. [But] Popper
had suggested that, in some cases, such as that of flying saucers, ‘the
explanation needed may not be of flying saucers, but of reports of flying saucers.’
-- John Watkins, Science and
Skepticism (1984), p. 248
Les faits ne
pénètrent pas dans le monde où vivent nos croyances; ils peuvent leur infliger les plus constants démentis sans les affaiblir.
-- Marcel Proust, Du coté de
chez Swann (1913)
A while back, I conceived a series of essays, to be titled
“Depth Psychology of the Electorate”;
but abandoned the project as too difficult. Since then, I have simply been downloading the stray
articles that attempt something of the sort. The most recent is one by Paul Krugman, “Interests, Ideology
And Climate”; and it is worth
calling out since, apart from such
merits as it inherently may possess, it is currently the #1 Most Emailed
article on the website of the New York Times.
The problem he sets himself is to explain the intense
opposition (or, to change the emphasis in a subtle way that points to the real
problem here, the intensity of the
opposition) to scientific assertions of global climate change, and political
attempts to do anything about the current and projected environmental
consequences.
Now, let us not follow Dr. Krugman immediately into that maelstrom, but prepare the ground logically;
which in this case, means also psychologically.
Whenever someone X maintains some proposition P, we may ask
ourselves, Why does X maintain that P? For ease of reference, let us label the questioned
state-of-affairs “A”:
(A)
X maintains that P.
The simplest proposal -- the most (psycho)logically
parsimonious, the most epistemically (as well as humanly) charitable -- the epistemological Null Hypothesis, we
may say -- is this:
(B) X believes that P.
And the simplest explanation for B (whose truth in turn we
now assume, for the sake of the argument) is
(C) P is true, or anyhow likely or at least
plausible.
If, then, we were somehow to learn the falsity of (C) (thus,
the truth of “Not-C”), we would have
the problem of explaining (B) --
X’s belief in P despite all that. That explanation might involve his being ignorant, misinformed,
unintelligent, debarred by ideology from admitting something like (P),
psychologically traumatized against entertaining the possibility of (P), or
what have you. (Such causes need
not be nearly so invidious as they might sound: Prior to the 19th century, virtually everyone
including scientists disbelieved a host of propositions which we entertain
today, in Quantum Theory or what have you. Ignorance is, broadly, simply the absence of omniscence.) And if, by contrast, we were somehow
to learn the falsity of (B), then the truth or falsity of (C) would
become irrelevant, and we would seek an entirely different explanation for this
abnormal state of affairs, namely that of someone publically proclaiming something he does not in fact believe. As: X is joking; X is lying for some self-gain; X was paid to maintain that P, or threatened with
bodily harm were he to fail to maintain it; X is delusional, and says things without even realizing
their meaning, etc. None of
these states of alethic/cognitive dissonance, are especially interesting for
the general theory of political economy or psychology. But at least we have set up all our
chessmen, on a clean board.
[Note: As
regards (C) => (B), I am well aware of such refinements as this:
True as well as false beliefs require explanation, as Gibbon
insisted. None the less, the
strategy of explanation must take into account whether or not the beliefs are
true.
-- Ernest Gellner, The
Psychoanalytic Movement (1985; 2nd edn. 1993), p. 219
but in the interests of keeping things as simple as possible
-- which is to say, alas, not very -- I shall ignore such details here.]
So, we have arrived at our first level of analysis:
(1) The denialists maintain P -- here:
the denial of the thesis of ongoing and continuing Global Climate Change -- because the thesis that they are denying, is bogus.
Such is the analysis
of the climate-change-denialists themselves, such as Michael
Crichton. (That is: presumably that is their stance, barring an
aberrant A-though-not-B scenario such as discussed above. But the reason we dismissed such
scenarios as being of any general interest, is that they are, by nature, the
sort of thing that typically obtains
only of a person here, a person there, and not half the citizenry. -- Although, at a deeper and murkier level, we shall ourselves
actually suggest something of the sort.)
Now we move away from the generally valid (psycho)logical,
and consider the contingent empirical situation we find ourselves in
today. In brief and without
argument (for nothing depends on the precise degrees of justification of the
various subpropositions that compose the overall position), the general scientific (and, lagging
behind it, political) consensus is that:
eppur’ si mouve; something is afoot; there are rumblings
and grumblings on Mount Olympus, from whence cometh our weather. In short: Not-C.
So now those who accept “A but Not-C” are obliged either to
shrug in annoyance, or to attempt to explain this curious state of
affairs. For purposes of
anaphora, let us label it in turn:
(Conundrum I) A but Not-C
And the
prevalent hypothesis among the liberal commentariat, is pecuniary: The denialists are less concerned
about the planet, or future generations, than about the plenitude of their
present pocketbook.
So, we have arrived at our second level of analysis:
(2) The denialists deny the thesis of global climate change [despite its truth or plausibility]
for reasons of economic self-interest.
Satisfied that they have adequately debunked the position of
the denialist -- content that they have torn aside the mask, such as that which might
shroud the vote of a legislator who pushes public support to a shaky
enterprise that turns out to be
owned by his wife -- most newspaper-readers and op-editorialists will go off
and celebrate with a drink, the day’s work done.
Dr. Krugman, however, is not satisfied with that. For one thing, he is an
economist, and has examined the numbers, which turn out not to amount to all
that much. Here he tells it in his
own words:
I’ve noted in earlier columns that
every even halfway serious study of the economic impact of carbon reductions —
including the recent study paid for by the anti-environmental U.S. Chamber of
Commerce — finds at most modest costs. Practical experience points in the same
direction. Back in the 1980s conservatives claimed that any attempt to limit
acid rain would have devastating economic effects; in reality, the
cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide was highly successful at minimal cost.
The Northeastern states have had a cap-and-trade arrangement for carbon since
2009, and so far have seen emissions drop sharply while their economies grew
faster than the rest of the country. Environmentalism is not the enemy of
economic growth.
So! We have a
problem; though at this point it
might seem no bigger than a man’s hand. If we are curious about the way the world works,
and the mind, we are obliged to ask the following question:
The owners of coal mines and
coal-fired power plants do have a financial interest in blocking environmental
policy, but even there the special interests don’t look all that big. So why is
the opposition to climate policy so intense?
(And for "intense" read here, additionally, emotional. That is an additional explicandum -- an additional datum to be explained. Many people, for example, quite stoutly maintain that 2 + 2 = 4, but they are not ... emotional about it. There is more of a puzzle here than might at first appear.)
Krugman now moves beyond a crudely economic or ‘vulgar
Marxist’ explanation of Denialism, and attempts a foray into analysis in terms
rather of ideology:
Well, think about global warming
from the point of view of someone who grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously,
believing that the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest is always good and that
government is always the problem, never the solution. Along come some
scientists declaring that unrestricted pursuit of self-interest will destroy
the world, and that government intervention is the only answer. It doesn’t
matter how market-friendly you make the proposed intervention; this is a direct
challenge to the libertarian worldview.
So far so good.
But one thing our logical-framework, if-P-then-Q approach fails to do,
is to give any sense of the feeling-tone
connected with these various propositions. Dr. Krugman goes on:
And the natural reaction is denial
— angry denial. Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you’ll be struck by the venom, the sheer
rage, of the denialists.
And that, indeed, introduces yet a second, or deeper,
explicandum, which swiftly takes us beyond the limits of ordinary economic or
political analysis. Namely
(Conundrum II) Not-C, yet
A-while-foaming-at-the-mouth.
(You see that mere logic is helpless here.
Aristotle must now pass the baton to Freud.)
Krugman adds the following richly suggestive remarks:
The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus
makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that
has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It’s
not really surprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly
turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers
around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to
justify a big-government power grab. After all, right-wingers never liked or trusted
scientists in the first place.
And there, basically, his analysis ends, at least for now.
~
And so:
I
downloaded that article, saving it to a “Depth Psychology of the Electorate”
file for possible future use, should I ever to return to the subject.
Krugman’s article takes an honorable
place beside the book by Thomas Frank,
What’s the Matter with Kansas
(which we examined
here).
And yet and yet …
The more I pondered the matter, the more it seemed: Our spade has been turned too early.
The attempt to dig beyond that recalcitrant layer where our
honorable excavator chose to stop, will take us into deep waters, with nothing
like certain answers.
Indeed, my goal will be simply, properly to frame the question (being in this influenced, in
part, by the philosopher-historian R.C. Collingwood, whose autobiography I just
finished reading). In
the meantime, fasten the seatbelts
on your (psycho)analytical bathyscaph, and join us in a dive to the depths:
(Additionally, there are some miscellaneous musings about
climate change in general
here, though these do not go very deep.)
~
To resume:
Dr Krugman’s quest for an explanation that went beyond the
glib and shallow pecuniary one (“They just don’t want to pay anything to
address the problem”) began with a purely empirical
look at the economic facts. And
while, at a stretch, those facts might extend so far as to explain (I), it
could not explain (II) -- a much more interesting conundrum, to anyone
psychologically inclined, though not the sort of thing normally addressed by
economists.
So let us do likewise. And indeed, we have not far to look, before we
encounter a problem with the “miffed Libertarians” argument. For indeed, there are literally
hundreds if not thousands of
government regulations that limit
absolute economic freedom, and that generally cost somebody something (if only
freedom of ill-advised action, as in the requirements that banks maintain at
least a little something in the till, or that drivers be licensed and have insurance),
from antitrust legislation, truth-in-lending regulations, the Pure Food
and Drug Act, expiration dates on the labels of medicine bottles, et cetera et
cetera. And while these may
produce some grumbling (mostly from those whose pocket-books are impacted --
major and minor polluters and the like), they do not produce anything like the
frenzy, the fury, that characterizes the rants of the Denialists. So what is going on?
First, it seems clear that the intensity of fury directed by
the Denialists against proponents of the reality of climate change, must have
something to do with
(i)
the role that climate itself plays in their lives
(ii)
the nature of said proponents.
(ii) is surely a lesser matter, but I mention it both because Krugman himself points to that factor (Populist hatred for the
proponents in this case, quite apart from what they are proposing: viz. scientists and intellectuals), and
because, more generally in America these days, a certain category of the electorate -- and to a great
extent it is the same category of the
electorate -- can be relied upon to attack virtually any proposition if the
proponent who champions it equals “Obama”.
So, let us look further at (i).
As worded, it seems bland; but at that level of generality, it is nearly useless. For after all, in a practical sense, climate (and weather
generally) affects all of us. That’s
why folks retire to Florida or Arizona. Simply on that basis, you would expect the most
vociferous alarm at ongoing global warming to come from penguins and polar bears (who have not been
polled) and from Gulf states like Texas, which are being especially
hard-hit. And yet, not
so: those Americans who are
already most being hurt by recent climate developments, are not by any means in
the forefront of demand for action.
We need, therefore, to proceed beyond the
practical role that climate plays in
our lives, and consider the
metaphorical/spiritual/psychological role it plays.
~
Once again, let us first step back, and consider a simpler
case. Suppose that the proponents
(and, here, actually the enforcers) of a certain suite of regulations affecting the
townspeople of a given town, are the elected authorities of that town, and that
their authority is widely seen as legitimate (thus eliminating consideration of
that pesky condition (ii)).
Such regulations might include:
(a) Put out your garbage at the curb, no
earlier than Monday, for collection on Tuesday.
(b) No building-materials, dead cats, or TV
sets permitted among your
recyclables.
(c) Keep your sidewalk shoveled and your
lawn mowed.
(d) No loud parties after midnight except
on Saturdays.
(e) If you repaint your house, the color
must be pre-approved by the town council.
(f) If you own a dog, you must pick up
after it poops on the sidewalk, keep it on a leash when off your own property,
and not let it bark all night long.
All of these
will cause grumbling from some
people. (To take a wry example from our own town: A friend of mine, call her X, was
annoyed at having had to pay a fine for putting garbage out by the curb too
early, the evidence for this being a photograph supplied to the town council by
her neighbor Y, a woman with whom she had been feuding. Adding salt to the wound was the
fact that the refuse in question was actually put there by Y, in front of X’s
house.) But usually no more
than grumbling. For
instance, (e) [an actual rule of our nanny-state town] might inspire the most
widespread opposition, because it seems like overreach, but the resistance will
be largely of a Kantian kind, rather than intensely personal and emotional. (With exceptions: Back when my family lived near
Springfield, Massachusetts, one notorious case involved a homeowner who,
enraged at the restriction, painted his house purple and nailed white paper
plates to serve as polka-dots all over it. But the point is, such exceptions are outliers,
statistically rare.)
Of greater interest to observers of political psychology,
are cases where the opposition is
intense
and personal, even if not widespread.
Thus, consider (f).
A number of citizens might object to this fairly strongly;
unsurprisingly, this cohort will
correlate strongly with the population of dog-owners.
So far, no surprises.
But now consider those who are absolutely
enraged by that regulation.
That is more interesting.
I would predict that such intense wrathful resentment will
correlate with … think about it…
the
breed of dog owned:
relatively
strong among owners of pit bulls and dobermans, relatively weak among the
owners of cocker spaniels.
This
correlation, then, will itself require explanation, and is at last sufficiently
specific to lend itself to interesting and probing analysis, where the more
vague and broad-brush states of affairs
would not produce cogent results.
And the analysis in this example would have to go well
beyond considerations of political-party affiliation, acknowledged
pronouncements, and probably even of the subjects’
conscious awareness.
Here the analytic path leads deeper, downwards --
descensis Averno (
noctes
atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis).
But that path we shall not tread.
~
In a sense, I ought to stop right here, since I have no real
elucidation to offer, for the depth-psychology of the Denialists.
Further, it is not a matter I
should even care to investigate, since that would involve wading
hip-deep
into the fever-swamps of some pretty cognitively challenged
and rebarbative people.
(As it happens, I am obliged by professional necessity, every day, to
analyze the communications of a different set of cognitively challenged and
rebarbative people, but at least I get paid for that.)
But before falling silent (or rather,
like a proper cobbler, returning to my last, which is mostly
linguistics),
I shall toss out some suggestions for possible lines of inquiry, by those more
inclined or qualified to pursue them.
~
To begin on the relatively firm ground of statistics rather
than depth-psychology:
Most of us Americans who are of middle-age or older, will
not personally experience great changes in our day-to-day lives as a direct
effect of global climate change -- certainly not as compared with a hundred
other vicissitudes and factors. Being personally alarmed, then, at the
prospects of possible ravages that such change might effect fifty or a hundred years hence, will relate strongly with how closely
we identify with the interests of future
generations.
Now, that is a deep-rooted and gnarly question, by no means
exhausted by what anyone would state explicitly, or would even be conscious of. So pursuit down that path is largely blocked, for the same
reason that investigation of any
matter relating to the depth-psychology of large populations (as opposed to an
individual analysand, whom the analyst can probe at will) is blocked. But a much simpler scenario
arises when you believe (when you believe that you have reason to believe) that
there aren’t going to be any future
generations.
Thus, if I were to come to know with certainty, that an
asteroid the mass of Mars was hurtling on a direct and undeflectable
collision-path with Earth, with impact predicted to be on such and such a date
one year from now (far too short a time for scientists and engineers to devise
and test effective counter-measures), that would certainly affect my attitude towards
all sorts of matters concerning the future of terrestrial affairs. I would not be fretting about the
prospects for my grandson’s getting into Stanford; indeed, I would not even (mirabile dictu) give a hoot about recycling.
Now, that scenario is far-fetched, but a related one
is in fact quite widespread, among folks who doubt there will be future
generations much longer, since the Rapture (or Armageddon) is expected any day
now. And that population is especially
well-represented among the ranks of climate-change deniers. The effect is even heightened if,
more than mere indifference towards future generations, you nurse an actual
hostility: as, a Rapturist who
positively looks forward to gazing down from Heaven upon those no-good infidel
Left-Behinders, writhing in the blazing heat and plagues of insects. (Too hot for them, eh? Gonna be a lot hotter where they're going!)
But now, have a care. Harboring that belief would certainly go a long
way towards explaining a person’s relative indifference
to the eventual effects of climate-change, but (at least logically) not to the
denial of its factuality -- that is,
not to Conundrum I. For some individuals (but by now the numbers
must be falling off), it might further lead, from sheer orneriness, to irritated
dismissal of all this talk about such change (rather the way, from sheer
annoyance, an impenitent meat-eater may brush aside wifely warnings that that
next cheeseburger will likely kill him, without actually going into any
evaluation of statistical probabilities). But it would not clarify Conundrum II -- it would not
explain the rage.
So, a blind alley.
Let’s try a somewhat different approach -- though related,
since still touching upon the “I’m alright, Jack” factor.
Among those Americans most likely (though still, not very)
to be affected by global warming in their own lifetimes, are those who own a
beachfront home. (Even then, they
have less to worry about in the short term from rising seas, than from the ordinary effects of wind and
waves.) So, on that purely
pecuniary/prudential basis, you might expect such a population to be somewhat
more likely to be found among the Denialists, than those who live a safe
distance from the shore.
And yet, here the statistical facts are (I expect) exactly
the opposite:
Inhabitants of
places like New York, or Martha’s Vinyard, or San Francisco, are
less likely to
be Denialists than their fellow-citizens off in Omaha, not more.
-- I am pulling the stats frankly out
of my ass, here, but the point is, this is the sort of thing which is easy to
investigate, with no psychology or clever analysis involved, via simple polling
techniques.
Find out who-all are
the denialists, and where-all they reside.
I predict (a nicely "falsifiable" prediction) that the mere actuarial statistics of geography-related
vulnerability to the effects of climate change, will not correlate neatly at
all with attitudes.
~
So let us recircle back to that original question, “the role
that climate itself plays in their lives”, and --suitably instructed by our
results thus far -- broaden this notion of the role played in lives past the simple empiricist considerations of
the effect on the price of tomatoes and whether certain noxious weeds and diseases
are creeping ever further northward.
Let us consider -- and not
specially from a tree-hugger perspective, either -- that what the proponents of
the reality of global climate-change are claiming, is that it is indeed global -- that it will affect the globe, this terraqueous orb on which we
live and die.
And now things begin to get interesting …
 |
| Signs in the sky ... |
Quite apart from any present discomfort to ourselves, or
future discomfort to our progeny,
the prospect of a significant change to the surface of this planet points to the possibility of extinctions: of Man, to be sure, as a distant contingency, but more
immediately of other creatures, such as our vulnerable friends the amphibians,
who are already dying off here and there. In particular, it means that our planet is still
evolving; and thus, the question
of each individual’s psychological connection with this planet and its evolution. This leads to two quite separate
considerations.
The first is comparatively superficial: namely, that being a climate-denialist
correlates fairly strongly with being an evolution-denialist; and climatic
evolution is one kind of evolution.
Not, however, of the kind that has historically been most
sensitive. And of all the possible
challenges to Creationism, certainly the idea of Global Warming must rank very
far down on the list, compared with extant geological and paleobiological
evidence. No, this cannot be
the smoking gun -- not for the denialists’ outright rage, at any rate, though it might help explain the general feeling
of discomfort and distaste associated with the climate-change scenario. (In a similar fashion: I am averse to vegetarianism, practically because I like my steak --
and like it rare, its red juice seeping richly into the fries -- but psychologically, also, because I dislike
its association with soupy, moping, hippy-dippy noöbotanical tie-dyed
bead-wearing neurasthenic gynocratic renunciationism.)
The second goes deeper, parting from the conscious
realm:
and here accordingly, we
depart from firm ground.
So let us focus on this image of extinction, not as a cognitive, evidential element
in the question of Natural Selection, but as a deeply personal and unsettling
gut issue -- for however controversial
on the public square, Darwinism is not an issue of fear for the young, unless
they are specifically taught to fear it.
Now, the prototypical extinction, even for adults, and the
only one that really matters to
children, is that of the dinosaurs.
And the classic imagery of that, burned into memory from the first time
you see it, is in
Fantasia;
you
can witness this indelible masterpiece here:
It is, notice, an extinction by heat; and it is
unbearable. (True, here we
are but casting about, and grasping at straws; yet we do believe that Dr Freud and Dr Jung might be
pricking up their ears at this point.)
 |
| It wasn't supposed to end this way ... |
Small boys like dinosaurs, and don’t mind a spot of
violence, even if one of the dinosaurs has to die: say, in a ferocious battle between mean Mr Tyrannosaurus and
brave little Triceratops. (We
shall not go on to speculate, with the Viennese, whether our young fantasist
harbor in the back of his mind, a thought of turning -- the tyrannosaural patriarch slain --
to the comely and gracile Coelophysis
who has been all the while beaming admiringly from the background.) But we never wanted to see all of them die -- all of our parents and aunts and uncles -- let alone in that degraded way.
(Dinosaurs represent our powerful parents, and our own young
dreams of potency. For oneself to
perish alone in some heroic act, can fulfil a universal archetype. But for all the generations to die together, obliterating all degree, and
that passively, miserably, is intolerable.)
(All this is, of course, extracted from that same orifice,
from whence I produced those demographic statistics about climate-change
deniers. I simply release the ideas into the noösphere, like blue balloons; for others, better positioned, to
pursue as they see fit.)
Alright -- dismiss this as the Disney Theory of
Climate-denial. (You got a better
one?) But there is more.
First, there is the very odd fact, the really baffling fact,
of a subpopulation of what are known as Dinosaur
Denialists : those who deny that any such creatures ever existed, that the
whole thing is just some elaborate hoax. I would predict that there is a vastly more than
chance correlation between being a Dinosaur Denialist and a Climate-Change
Denialist. (That is: Most of the former will also be among
the latter. Not vice versa,
simply owing to the relative sizes of the populations.) Indeed, this subspecies of Homo insapiens appears to be particularly thick on the ground in the state of Texas -- again contrary to naive empirical predictions, since dinosaur fossils are also especially widespread in that state.
One celebrated
dino-denialist reportedly did so on
the extraordinarily stupid grounds that the Bible does not mention them.
Of course, that worthy book likewise
makes no mention of penguins, or racoons, or hundreds of other fine creatures
whom we can observe every day (nor of iPads, for that matter).
And I do not say that by way of
logical refutation of his thesis (which lies beneath the necessity of
that), but of pychological observation, that he cannot be
that dumb-- that therefore something else must be going on.
[Now that we have arrived at our penguin friends (where all
roads on WDJ lead eventually), it is clear that we are losing our analytic focus,
and it is time to close.
As an
envoi, you can view irrefutable evidence of the existence both of dinosaurs and
of prehistoric penguins
here:
When Penguins Ruled the Earth.]
Something further to ponder:
(Note:
Climate
change does not figure in this list.)
[Update] I just happened upon the following passage, posing exactly the same meta-question that we do here (too much sound & fury for the controversy to be really about no more than what is mentioned explicitly), and again with the intersection of climatology and extinction:
Re the heated debate over what
happened to dinosaurs (and other life-forms) at the K-T boundary:
All this might
seem to be the huff and puff of scientific debate, but what has surprised me is
the vituperation with which the arguments have been prosecuted . … It is a curious parallel that the supposed violence of the
Cretaceous end is matched by the
violence of the twentieth-century exchanges. … There is a degree of outrage here which is out of proportion to the
stimulus. … I can suggest something
darker and more subconscious as a reason for the anger: this is the apocalypse.
-- Richard Fortey, Life
(1998), p. 252-3
[To resume]
[“Zoom out”] Conundrum II (Prairie Populists are dreadfully upset
about the assertions of climate science, despite ambiguous evidence) is in fact
a special case of this:
(Conundrum III) Prairie Populists are dreadfully upset
about a lot of things; and have ever been so.
[Examples (going back in history a bit): bimetallism; Eastern bankers; fluoridation;
UFOs and anal probes …]
Formally/arithmetically, explicating (C III) presents more
of a challenge, since there is more to explicate; a priori, each obsession requires its own separate
explanation. However, there is
some chance that the specificities -- the quiddities -- of these separate
obsessions, might have a common root:
exradicating which, would provide a rung towards a general explanation of all its
daughter-shoots.
[In a few happy cases, just this sort of thing has happened
in mathematics. Thus, the
long-standing “Fermat’s Last Theorem” (misnamed ‘theorem’: rather, Conjecture) resisted the best efforts of analysts until finally
Andrew Wiles settled the matter, not by a frontal assault, but by proving the
more general [and thus, in principle more difficult] Taniyama–Shimura
conjecture, which had Fermat as a special case.]
But that is small consolation. Just as Fermat had to await the centuries of
accumulated wisdom, finally synthesized by the Sitzfleisch and genius of Wiles,
so this “Conundrum III” dumps us right back in the lap of the general problem
of the Depth Psychology of the Electorate, which continues to elude our own
poor powers.
~
And thus, adjusting our headlamps,
let us descend yet another level.
 |
|
Difficilis descensus Averno
|
The Earth -- la terre, die Erde -- is Mother Earth, la terre mère; she is not just some tarmac to tread on.
It is bad enough that we were expelled from the womb, where
we had been getting along quite nicely, thank you; worse, that we were ever weaned; no wine nor usquebaugh can ever quite compensate that loss.
Any hurt to her, is a wound as well, to our own most least
worst best-most -- Ah! But it is intolerable, to consider
such things.
And to imagine that … that we might have harmed her, as proposed by those who (curse them!)
speak of “human-caused” global warming…
nay but the tongue fails; withers within dry lips.
Such a thing were past repentence. Past wailing grim.
nothing
left but to DENY IT (!!!)
like pummeling a lesion, to hurt the pain !!!!!!!!!!
 |
|
Mor, gi meg solen!
|
[The above, quite surgically calibrated effusion, is an
attempt to probe the depths beyond the cortex, guided by that most curious detail, which we hitherto have
not mentioned,
that the rage of denial is especially fierce, when that
clause “human-caused” is in focus.
Quite obviously, that detail would be the target of the
smokestack owners;
but their
calculated ire
goes small ways to
explain, the bubbling bursting chest-burn of the populace at large …
As we
elsewhere observed, the
percentage of the effect that might be ascribable to human agency, is quite
beside the point, in the matter of treating the ill:
just as we can administer aspirin, without quite knowing
what caused the fever.]
~
Well, time to turn aside; our toe now touches the fever-swamp of eisegesis and
speculation. And turn rather to
the general (mostly conscious) area
of “The best défense is a good óffense”, along with the (mostly preconscious) area of arrière-pensées. (Here I have in mind that
well-attested phenomenon, whereby the ex-Catholic or ex-Communist becomes, not
an Episcopalian or Socialist, but an out-and-out atheist or neo-con: suggesting that they had been harboring
severe reservations about their own life-governing world-view all along.)
For another conjecture presents itself, though its validity
would be quite difficult to elucidate, since polling, for instance, would here
be of absolutely no use. Namely,
that in their heart of hearts, many of the Denialists suspect that the
Climate-Change thesis is actually largely true; yet the thought is (for whatever
reason, shallow or deep) intolerable;
and the greater the possibility that the thesis is true, the louder must
be the denial.
Evidence for this conjecture (since mass individual
psychoanalysis is not an option, and might not work anyway), must come from …
ah but who can say … Late-night confidences in darkened bars; revelations whispered from the
pillow while the spouse is
asleep; deathbed confessions …
~
~ ~
So far, our analysis of climate-change denial has focused on
the particularities of weather and climate in relation to the psyche (the "Take Shelter" approach). Let us now try a different tack, more
sociopolitical and less depth-psychological, and consider the following
hypothesis:
(Conundrum IV) Climate-change denialism may be an
aetiological offshoot of science denialism in general.
Let me parse out what is being suggested here. We are not claiming a syllogism of the following sort:
(a) Population A denies thesis X.
(b) Thesis X is currently well-supported by scientific
testimony.
(c) Ergo, Population A is likely to deny other theses Y that meet criterion (b)
-- e.g., X = ‘climate-change is underway’, and Y = “vaccines
are in general effective, and safe relative to the dangers of not getting
vaccinated”.
That syllogism might have a lot of truth to it or a scant
amount, but it is not our quarry here. For indeed, each such thesis X, Y, … there are obvious psychological and
political particularities which could easily swamp the effects of a general
inclination or disinclination to accept what guys in labcoats say on TV. So, (IV) should not be taken in any
glib sense as being evidently true or whatever.
Anyhow, the hunch was prompted by an article written by a
physician, which just now appeared in the Washington Post. Here is the gist of it:
The ethical
negligence of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children
1 in 10 parents in the United States now forgo or delay
vaccinations for their kids.
The anti-vaccination movement is a relatively new one that
has taken hold over the past decade. Started by a small community of parents,
it is based on myths that have been perpetuated by the power of the Internet
and endorsements from celebrities such as actress Jenny McCarthy, who has
suggested that vaccinations may have caused her son’s autism.
the number of people with measles had reached a record for
any time since the disease was declared eliminated in this country in 2000.
According to the CDC, much of the outbreak is attributable to unvaccinated
people who acquired the disease during travel abroad.
Although medical facts show there is no evidence to support
the argument that vaccinations aren’t safe, they aren’t enough to persuade
those who are committed to their beliefs. The real problem is that the medical
community is a victim of its own success: We’ve been lulled into a false sense
of security when it comes to disease and vaccinations. People under the age of
50 didn’t come of age in an era when these now-preventable infections were
deadly. So it’s very easy for them to believe that there aren’t any
ramifications to not vaccinating their children.
Hard scientific facts and trends show that couldn’t be
farther from the truth. In addition to the measles outbreaks, nearly 10,000
cases of pertussis (whooping cough) have been reported to the CDC since the
beginning of the year. With the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, it’s
even more important to make sure children are immunized.
Some parents believe that vaccinating their children is a
decision that only affects them and their families. Not true. Vaccinations are
based on the premise of “herd immunity.” A certain percentage of the
population must be immunized to fully protect against the disease. Once that
number falls below a certain level, people are at risk, especially children too
young to be immunized, pregnant women and immuno-compromised individuals such
as those being treated for cancer. Parents who choose not to vaccinate
their children also are putting other peoples’ children at risk along with
their own younger children, whose immune systems may not be developed enough to
fight off these infections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/26/the-ethical-negligence-of-parents-who-refuse-to-vaccinate-their-children/
Here we do notice a common theme between the climate-denial
stance and that of the
anti-vaxxers: namely, the “I’m all
Right, Jack” attitude. Whether it’s
future generations, or Other People’s Children -- no skin off my nose, bubba.
As for the psychological profile of anti-vaxxers (assuming
that it might turn out to be other than a strict statistical sample across all
races and genders and ages and state-of-residency etc. in the U.S. population),
I know nothing about it.
But let’s
take a look.
There is just one named star anti-vaxxer in the Post
article; and her profile is
important well beyond that of any
randomly selected anti-vaxxer, as being the figure that drew many others into the anti-vax movement. To whom do these folks listen, if not
to their doctors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_McCarthy
Biochemical details:
As doctors say, dosage makes the poison. The amount of,
say, formaldehyde in a typical vaccination is much less than you’d get eating
an apple. The same can be shown for the other ingredients claimed to be toxins
in vaccines as well. The truth is vaccines contain far too small a dose of any
of these things to cause any of the problems McCarthy and other anti-vaxxers
claim exist.
Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to
humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her
face.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/13/jenny_mccarthy_responds_to_claims_she_s_not_antivax.html
The profile whose outlines are thus shaping up, resemble
those for the Pre-School Molestation Satanic Ritual scare of the Reagan years [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
]:
a kind of low-rent right-wing feminoid, sharply contrasting
with the Michael-Crichton-et-alia outline of the climate-change deniers.
[Update 16 Feb 2015] A nice survey of science-denial, by Joel Achenbach:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-science-is-so-hard-to-believe/2015/02/12/2ff8f064-b0a0-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html
[Update 26 Feb 2015] Although the social dynamics in Germany are quite different, there is a curiously strong anti-vaccination movement there as well:
In Berlin grassieren die Masern – und die irrationale Angst vor dem Impfen.
Im Blick auf die Schweinegrippe-Impfung von einem »gewaltigen Verbrechen
gegen die Menschheit« die Rede, »das offenbar nur ein Ziel verfolgt:
den Genozid breiter Teile der Bevölkerung«.
http://www.cicero.de/salon/medizin-und-verschwoerungstheorie-die-wirre-gedankenwelt-der-impfgegner/58918
[Update 30 May 2015] Re evolution-denial & climate-change denial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/
The chart in question:
[Update 14 Sept 2019] More on the odd psychology of anti-vaxxer activists:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-13/california-senate-vaccine-bill-protest-red-liquid-thrown-onto-lawmakers
A woman was arrested Friday on
charges including assault after dropping what authorities said “appeared to be
blood” on members of the California Senate from her seat in the visitor
gallery. The disturbance occurred as lawmakers were wrapping up their work
before adjourning for the year, forcing them to evacuate the chamber to
continue in a nearby committee hearing room.
The woman, who was identified by
California Highway Patrol officials as Rebecca Dalelio, 43, was among dozens of
protesters who were inside the state Capitol to oppose a pair of bills signed
Monday by Gov. Gavin Newsom to impose new oversight of childhood vaccine exemptions.
The CHP later said in a statement
that the blood-like substance was
contained in “a feminine hygiene device” reported to be a menstrual cup held by
the woman.
Once again, the strange feminist angle.
