So the question before us on this panel is, "Will the Planet Survive
the Age of Humans?" And I want to focus on one particular aspect of
humans that makes them very problematic in a planetary sense -- namely,
their brains.
What I've spent the last year or more trying to understand is what it is about our brains that makes facts such odd and threatening things; why we sometimes double down on false beliefs when they're refuted; and maybe, even, why some of us do it more than others.
And of course, the new book
homes in on the brains -- really, the psychologies -- of politically
conservative homo sapiens in particular. You know, Stephen Colbert once
said that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."
And essentially what I'm arguing is that, not only is that a funny
statement, it's factually true, and perhaps even part of the nature of
things.
Colbert also talked about the phenomenon of "truthiness," and as it
turns out, we can actually give a scientific explanation of truthiness
-- which is what I'm going to sketch in the next ten minutes, with
respect to global warming in particular.
I almost called the book The Science of Truthiness -- but The Republican Brain turns out to be a better title.
The Facts About Global Warming
So first off, let's start with the facts about climate change --
facts that you'd think (or you'd hope) any human being ought to accept.
It turns out that the case for human-caused global warming is based
on simple and fundamental physics. We've known about the greenhouse
effect for over one hundred years. And we've known that carbon dioxide
is a heat trapping gas, a greenhouse gas. Some of the key experiments on
this, by the Irishman John Tyndall, actually occurred in the year 1859,
which is the same year that Darwin published On the Origin of Species.
We also know that if we do nothing, seriously bad stuff starts
happening. If we melt Greenland and West Antarctica, we're looking at 40
feet of sea level rise.
This is, like, bye bye to key parts of
Florida.
Enter the Denial
So then, the question is, why do people deny this? And why, might I add, do Republicans in particular deny this so strongly?
And if your answer to that question is, "oh, because they're stupid" -- well, you're wrong. That's what liberals want
to think, but it doesn't seem be correct. In fact, it seems to be
precisely the opposite -- smarter (or more educated) Republicans turn
out to be worse science deniers on this topic.
This is a phenomenon that I like to call the "smart idiot" effect, and I just wrote about it for AlterNet and Salon.com.
Let me tell you how I stumbled upon this effect -- which is really
what set the book in motion. I think the key moment came in the year
2008 when I came upon Pew data showing:
No comments:
Post a Comment