In the course of questioning James Lovelock's apocaphilia, Jon Lebkowsky says this:
A solution to the problem of global warming begins with a cautious, balanced, and rational approach, and getting there is as much about our psychological and social frameworks than our ability to analyze and predict.
The latter half of that statement seems obviously true. But why should we believe that, among our many "psychological and social frameworks," the "cautious, balanced, and rational approach" is the most important or the most effective one?
It would be nice if being balanced and rational were the first step toward solutions. That would certainly play to the strengths of most environmental thinkers and writers, who tend to be white, affluent, highly educated, wonky nerds. (Please understand, this is no knock on Jon -- I'm a proud member of that very demographic.) It's certainly something they/we tend to take for granted.
But what evidence is there that balanced and rational approaches are the most effective at creating social change? It's perfectly fine with me if people want to claim that staying within the careful bounds of scientific consensus, eschewing exaggeration or charged rhetoric, and using fact-based, reasoned debate are virtuous in and of themselves. Lots of people, myself included, think so. It's fine with me if people have an aesthetic preference for that kind of writing. It's fine with me if people want to say that balance and reason are primary virtues -- that the ends (creating social change) do not justify the means (non-balanced, unreasonable rhetoric).
But making the claim that balance and reason are the most effective psychological and social frameworks through which to create change is something else entirely. I just don't see much evidence for that. Most social change seems to me to proceed via the limbic system, not the frontal cortex. It happens via values and narrative, identity and status, not platonic devotion to empirical truth. It happens backwards and sideways and irrationally, not rationally, step by step.
This is not an insignificant point. I happen to enjoy the engineer-centric tone of most green writing. But let's not fool ourselves.
Comments
View as Flat
ffletcher Posted 9:49 am
30 Nov 2006
I think supporting a position that balance and rational thinking repersents the best way to strategically approach an issue and provides a good foundation from which one may best develop a solution to a problem like global warming would be found to be stronger position than the position that balance and rational thinking are the characteristics that distinquish white people from others.
Martin Luther King, Andrew Young, and even Jesse Jackson are examples of rational balanced people who have known how to best communicate and effect change.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:01 am
30 Nov 2006
Cassandra and I have been radicalized beyond our values and we don't like it.
Radical it is.
Ready to make not nice.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 10:02 am
30 Nov 2006
It is being rational??????????????LOL
Many a rational person is really insane.
[No not certifiable,..... but... unaware, apathetic, moronic........ just no empathy for LIFE, they actually become anti-LIFE.]
So is 'sanity' being like the next person????
NO, sanity is a unique state, where the person is totally free of poisons.... including industrial pollutants, so that they are guided by their clear direct conscience and therefore all their actions are sustainable in the long term.
They do not spin.
>> balanced and rational
LOL, I am afraid our leaders are not sane
and, sadly even our scientists.
Hey, Get a committee, it would be just as effective.
Good luck
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:04 am
30 Nov 2006
David, were you really trying to suggest that most balanced and rational people are white males? I suspect this is a paragraph that got away from you.....
Please, clarify.
patrick
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:06 am
30 Nov 2006
I said environmental thinkers and writers tend to be white. I probably should have added who spend their time writing stuff on the web, but either way, I'm pretty sure it's true, however lamentable.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "solution." If I were Emperor of the Universe, tasked with coming up with and imposing a solution to global warming, sure, I'd use caution, balance, and reason. That's what we might call a Solution on Paper (SP), something the green internet hordes are certainly expert at generating.
But then there's Solutions in the Real World (SRW), which involve far more than EROI, carbon sequestration, and tax shifting. They involve rhetoric and persuasion and mobilization and media strategy. It's the SRWs I'm talking about -- it's just not immediately obvious to me why we would assume that balance and reason are the most effective way to generate SRWs.
www.grist.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:09 am
30 Nov 2006
Or rather:
All white, affluent, highly educated, wonky nerds are balanced and rational ≠ all rational people are white, affluent, highly educated, wonky nerds
Yeah?
www.grist.org
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 10:12 am
30 Nov 2006
none!
All real change comes from radical people,
such people are treated like dirt, marginalised and persecuted, but eventually their logic is taken as the way forward.
But in between times there is a real war.... sanity against insanity!
Today, the only sane people left on the planet are uneducated powerless primitives, totally doomed to extinction.
Now the world is controlled by the masses of poisoned people who define 'sanity' to fit their own unsustainable behaviours.
Game over.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:14 am
30 Nov 2006
I find Sunflower to be a very rational person in his presentation of his thoughts and he has influenced me from that center of his. I am a strong support of concentrating PV because he showed me the wisdom of that technology.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:19 am
30 Nov 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:51 am
30 Nov 2006
At this point, doing solar technology is like painting a burning house.
If we don't get a large, boots-on-the-ground revolution then we are toast.
Cassandra is a psychiatrist so being nuts is not an option.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 12:33 pm
30 Nov 2006
What does it mean to get radical? What is a boots on the ground revolution? Is it just talk, or is it action?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:49 pm
30 Nov 2006
like nothing else matters.
We just can not do business as usual. I hope, after the denial, the anger is contagious and we rise up by the millions to demand change.
I, for one, have declared independence from a government that has surrendered to the enemy of humanity.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 1:18 pm
30 Nov 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:50 pm
30 Nov 2006
The development of market economies and the great wealth this has brought us is based on reasoned analysis
The abolishment of slavery was partially based on reason
As was women's rights
And at its core environmentalism is reasonable and rational
Sure, emotion, passion, etc. have a role but if there weren't good reasons and rationalities behind big ideas they usually won't last- there are some exceptions of course
I, for one, will work hard for a world that is more rational and based on reason.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 2:06 pm
30 Nov 2006
Those who want to see climate change measures may need to do the same thing.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 2:28 pm
30 Nov 2006
Please do water evaporation tests on standing water in your area.
see details at omegafour.com
If these tests show what is theorised then
>> we rise up by the millions to demand change.>>
Rise up by the billions... it is your children's lives you are playing with.
We adults are already dead
The future must be saved.
PS Post all results to the above link.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:40 pm
30 Nov 2006
David says "All white, affluent, highly educated, wonky nerds are balanced and rational ≠ all rational people are white, affluent, highly educated, wonky nerds".
This is true, but just as the second part of the equation if false, alas, so is the first...
Both sides are false, so in that sense, they are equal!! LOL.
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:06 pm
30 Nov 2006
On an alleged connexion between ethnicity and gender, and rationality, we might consider some recent winners of the Nobel Peace Prize:
Muhammad Yunus, of Bangladesh; 2006
Mohamed El Baradei, of Egypt; 2005
Wangari Maathai, of Kenya, the first environmentalist prize winner; 2004
Rigoberta Menchu, of Guatemala; 1992
Aung San Suu Kyi, of Burma; 1991.
El Baradei is basically a professional Western scientist and diplomat; but all of them are thoughtful, rational, shrewd, adroit; and they did not get where they got without using their heads.
In the human animal, there is no such thing as pure rationality, operating without other influences. That is one of the great conflicts in Greek literature: how to preserve the state, in peaceful harmony, or the soul, in peaceful harmony, from invaders from without, and from disruptions from within. Such invasions and disruptions are examples of "suffering": "pathos," "passion."
To get back to Jon Lebkowsky's sentence, the word that I have a problem with is "cautious." As has been suggested earlier this year by others, when it comes to the environment, and to the climate crisis and the extinction crisis in particular, we really need to adopt an analogue to Dick Cheney's "One-percent doctrine." I.e., even if the data are unclear, and the probabilities are tangled, we need to have the worst-case scenario before our eyes at all times, and to take drastic measures to prevent its coming to pass.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
djnoll Posted 10:20 pm
30 Nov 2006
I am a strong believer in logic and reason. I am a student (at age 54 so you understand I have life experience to support me) in Public Policy, and I have a life long interest in history. So, I can safely say, that reason and logic and calm debate have done very little to change anything. However, take the same facts and put passion and commitment behind them, talk with conviction and facts, and change can occur. Part of the problem that the environmental movement has had over the years is that they have failed to understand that rhetoric can only take you so far, unless you can touch the hearts, as well as the minds of society, you cannot create change. I know that the people who work for the various environmental groups are passionate about their efforts and work tirelessly to try to accomplish things, but they need to come together, pool their arguments and then with commitment and passion, talk to the hearts of American citizens, not just the heads. Then you may actually see the changes begin to happen.
Permalink
Deborah Byrd Posted 10:38 pm
30 Nov 2006
And of course, passion and conviction and touching people in their hearts have a place. Other people hold that place in the world.
There's no reason why we can't have all of the above, in a world of 6.5 billion people. We're all different. We pursue many paths. All of these things are happening at once.
The reality of climate change is that pure unadulterated need is probably what will transcend all the rhetoric and get people to act. When people begin to see that we are linked to the Earth - and that climate change will affect us all.
Climate change is not a movement, like women's rights or the abolishion of slavery.
Climate change is a physical reality that may well affect the human infrastructures we need to survive.
Deborah Byrd
Earth & Sky Radio Series
"A clear voice for science."
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:20 am
01 Dec 2006
A for instance... if reason & balance were "the way" to solve climate change, then simply everyone would be jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon - I think if you look up "reason & balance" in Wikipedia you see Al's mug. However, IMO, you need a combination of reason & balance with passion & charisma. Al comes up with the plan (SR) and Bill Clinton convinces the American public and the legislature (SRW).
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 12:35 am
01 Dec 2006
This would be true. Not that reason doesn't get a prominent place, but making too much of a fetish of reason might lead to a kind of tone deafness toward forms of eloquence that may not be strictly reason-based.
If you go back to the civil rights movement-- weren't there a lot of criticisms of MLK that he was being unreasonable? That he should be more patient in his approach to acheiving change? MLK's reply to this was not some sort of logical syllogism...
And back to this statement of George Lakoff's:
Within traditional liberalism you have a history of rational thought that was born out of the Enlightenment: all meanings should be literal, and everything should follow logically. So if you just tell people the facts, that should be enough -- the truth shall set you free. All people are fully rational, so if you tell them the truth, they should reach the right conclusions. That, of course, has been a disaster.
I heard a NPR story a while back on Rosa Parks, and how there was a myth that was constructed about how she was just going about her business and all of a sudden it occurred to her that she shouldn't give up her seat. This made sense from the perspective of the civil rights movement's story, but in fact, Parks was an experienced and dedicated activist with passionate beliefs.
I'm all for reason, but the passions seem important as well. Not everyone falls under the category of a "Center-Left Technocrat," and I think you limit yourself if you're only willing to work with other centrist technocrats. (Of course, non-rational activism can have its own issues, but that's another story...)
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 3:25 am
01 Dec 2006
Not so long ago, people used to call this the 100th monkey effect, and think this process of social change was shown in a scientific study. The irony is that the "effect" turns out to be a story itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_Monkey
But our evident need for the story shows that although we need the science to understand what is happening and guide our choices, we need the story--the myth--to inspire us.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:24 am
01 Dec 2006
Dear CanisCandida,
My inclusion of the LOL (Laughs Out Loud) was to show that I was joking... (smile).
Does social change happen through balance and reason? Umm, mostly it happens through organizing. Step by step, doing the hard work. See the Grist interview with Sam Pratt.
http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2006/11/27/pr...
Both balance and reason and emotion are tools that are useful along the way.
Committment, communication (getting off the computer and getting out talking to people), and perseverence count a lot.
So, this question, while fun and interesting, strikes me as a false dichotomy.
patrick
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:03 am
01 Dec 2006
"Most social change seems to me to proceed via the limbic system, not the frontal cortex. It happens via values and narrative, identity and status, not platonic devotion to empirical truth. It happens backwards and sideways and irrationally, not rationally, step by step."
Sadly, most of the social change proceeding via the limbic system is not for the better. Consider a few recent events. It brought the Neocons to power. It motivated a small group of Saudi Arabians to fly jets into buildings full of innocent people. It led to a pre-emptive war in Iraq. It motivated Americans to re-elect George W. Bush.
When progressives decide that they are absolutely certain regarding their approach to solving the worlds problems, when they are ready to do something, anything, even the wrong thing, when they decide force might be a suitable approach... you can absolutely count me out. At that point I will give up any hope for a better world.
I fear the environmentalist who KNOWS HE IS RIGHT and prepared to do whatever is necessary to save the world more than I fear the religious fundamentalists. And I hope the U.S. government tracks them just as they track other terrorist.
I'm fairly certain the extreme environmentalists disapprove of much that I do, but I do it to save the natural ecosystems our lives depend on. I believe I care about the world as much as they do. Are they interested in a rational scientific approach to solving problems? Do they want to understand why some people believe there are different approaches to creating a sustainable human society?
Or... Will they decide there is not even time for a trial? Will they decide there is an emergency and that I and others working in various scientific fields should be imprisoned? Perhaps re-educated? Or perhaps eliminated for the good of the world?
The suggestion of discarding reason terrifies me.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:30 am
01 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 11:31 am
01 Dec 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:23 am
02 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 6:46 am
02 Dec 2006
Is it "client reason" or is it "direct clear conscience reason" ?????????
Client reasoning is that practiced by the establishment, and propagandised to the masses.
The latter type of reasoning "direct clear conscience reasoning" is designed by the SINGLE super-organism LIFE to enable an individual super cell to remain withing the whole, to allow them to remain within the natural laws that will ensure their sustainability.
So what is radical reasoning?
Radical reasoning only comes about when "direct clear conscience reasoning" fails to be the way forward, in other words the masses and the establishment are poisoned out of their conscience, they have become insane supper cells of LIFE bent on extinction.
Radical reasoning in such a situation is usually expressed by one or a few, and so the error of client reasoning is exposed,
AND WAR IS DECLARED on both sides.
Which side are you one?
Science on the other hand is the study of this reality, it should not be biased in any way, and it can not show the way forward, it just says what is.
The only way forward and remain sustainable and have a future is for all citizens to be free of poisons (toxics),
and all of them to be controlled by the same collective direct clear conscience.
LIFE does not care, you may all die, LIFE will seed and go on...
It really is up to you to clean up your act and join LIFE once again, even if all your cherished dreams, lollipops etc have to be discarded,
and even if you have to fight your brother.
Permalink