Description:
During an August 4 meet and greet in Manchester, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was filmed telling Granite State voters that “breathing” contributed to climate change. This weekend when a NextGen Climate volunteer asked Christie whether he stood by those comments, Christie called the statement “ridiculous,” denied ever making the comments, and then touted his record of supporting solar energy in New Jersey. Learn more at nh.nextgenclimate.org
Big week for getting called out on climate canards. First Rick Santorum introduced some fresh climate denial crocks, and got clobbered, first here, by the very scientists he claimed to quote, and now Chris Christie tries to slip by the old “breathing causes climate change” crock.
If only these candidates would watch this video series, so much embarrassment could have been avoided. I treated this topic some years ago…
I’ll say again – if aliens ever visit, or tap into our civilization remotely, what they will find most incomprehensible is that a species capable of creating the incredible technology and artistic beauty that we have – continues onward and forever it seems, to empower the most corrupt, uninspiring, least intelligent, and generally most pathetic people imaginable as their LEADERS. How is this possible? Yes, I know all the electioneering details so no need to remind me. I’m asking a deeper question. If the alien intelligence came to YOU and asked YOU, about the Human species – how is this possible? What would you say?
Why do we continue to permit it? This is the great embarrassment of being human.
It’s because intelligent people are generally less violent as they are equipped with rational thinking skills with a head full of “what if’s” to take responsibility of their actions. A lot of people lack this and resort to gut-reactions and lizard-brain stimuli-response behaviour. I think Steven Novella explains this very well in his Skeptical Neurologist talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8BcqrKOb1A
What worries Steven Novella is that as a species we have not evolved enough for the rational lateral thinking part of our brain to trigger when we need it the most. The news is just full of this gut-behaviour violence and completely thoughtless individuals. The classical denier has problems connecting to their rational mind as there is a soothing part that tries to tell them everything is alright and to ignore what they observe or hear. It’s likely a primitive instinct behaviour to protect a short term goal about preserving the status quo when you are in a situation of pleasure.
I am not sure if we are capable to solve these major issues due to this limitations in our cognitive processes. I highly doubt that there will be a big movement of very intelligent people suddenly going all Rambo on deniers and the people and corporations stalling any real action. After all they know that violence generally don’t solve problems.
I am also troubled by the evidence that shows that there is no such thing as “free will” as Sam Harris explains in his book.
http://www.samharris.org/free-will
Although we know that we can always stall a thought and rationalize on it, churn it another round, bring out new facts, relations, etc – the initial idea or the set of thoughts that are brought out in each round is not yours by decision but a function of what’s in the brain and what it considers important due to learning. This is why it’s so easy to prime the brains of people (brainwashing is a better term) as it becomes an auto-response, and every round you bring this thought around in your thought processes can bring out more auto-response that confirms this thought. To ignore this physical limitation of our brains would be a big mistake as it just complicates how we relate as human beings who clearly have a completely different view on e.g. global warming. Those studying people with compulsive behaviours know there is a lot of auto-response that simply does not enable their brains to side-track enough to observe their own actions. And the path back to their destructive behaviour is always short even if they seem to have come out of it for a while.
I know the discussion about free will is still very heated, and naturally the ones that does not agree with it, generally have a spiritual or religious relation to human beings and not a scientific one. Naturally its is among these people one will also find a greater number of climate deniers too, as its the same kind of auto-response behaviour that drives these people. I think a good move is for those of us who feel climate change is an important problem, is to understand how we ourselves came to that conclusion. Perhaps embracing our lives as first and foremost physical beings and not spiritual ones that made the shift? If so how can we make more people see this? Certainly not by pushing more Creationism in schools. Religion and all sorts of beliefs seems to be stronger than ever – which makes this a bleak prospect for the future in understanding our position in the fate of the planet. 🙁
Btw, I am not against gut-reaction, it’s a very important part of our individual species survival instinct. It works well when there is an immediate threat to our lives – but as well know it’s not very well evolved to consider threats long into the future.
But there is a vital distinction, and that is there are physical truths and falsehoods. It’s perfectly possible to prime a brain into doing something that is dangerous in spite of the rules of physics clearly showing the danger. It’s clearly not wise to jump out of a window to get fast down to the ground floor because we have learned truths about how physics work with relation to gravitational forces. It’s basically one we are primed with from the first time we try to raise our heads in search of food – and likely pre-programmed to some extent to handle gravitational forces with regards to neurological impulses to muscles at least.
If we are to understand anything about truths I think learning more about the physical world and how things “work” in the universe is absolutely essential. Through this knowledge one comes to respect life for what it is and how unique and important our habitat is.
John – thanks for your thoughts here. Those are mostly my conclusions as well, although I tend to think a purely materialistic view of the universe can create its own set of problems.
We have to accept that we are incredibly limited creatures, and that these limits extend deeply into our own minds as well. Liberal thinking tends to borrow from religious thinking in its assumption that humans are actually advanced over other species. I see the human brain as a rationalization machine. We act like any other species would do in the same situation, and then we use our brains to rationalize those acts. (There are possible exceptions, but these are far from the norm.)
Our “advanced” intelligence only allows us to act further on our animal instincts than other species, but it fails to produce a real maturity in understanding either that those instincts exist or that it’s no different than any other species.
I also agree that if we managed to see ourselves in our proper place, we might examine our actions with more forethought. Sadly, we don’t.
Indeed jim, the ability to step out of ones own bubble and observe your own actions and behaviour in a bigger picture is an important one to learn to become a better person. It’s really the biggest challenge with any kind of addiction, and one would be pretty ignorant to not acknowledge that we all have our addictions, some unproblematic and some vices.
I feel a big part of our culture is formed by how we relate to wealth and the whole money system. I personally think this is the biggest misstep we as a human species have done as this “tokenized energy” has made us blind to the external costs to the planet in our glut to aquire more. If you rip a tree out of the ground you can immediately see the damage you have done – if you buy a piece of furniture you have no connection to the tree that was cut down to make it. A good step would be for the true cost of things to be more visible to us. Seeing children working at textile factories might shake our feeling of empathy and understand that our cheap clothing actually is a display of some sort of accepted slavery only hidden (many brand names will never disclose where the clothes are actually made).
Sorry, I totally disagree with Novella and others who say “we”‘re just not capable of being better. That’s NOT my experience (See a longer post of mine below). That certainly doesn’t describe me. In fact, it smacks of making excuses, and is also profoundly de-motivating to anyone who regrets their habits and hopes to change.
Having listened to Novella, I see lots of flat-out assertions made without qualifications, and that’s a red flag for me. He just misses completely (except for perhaps a bit of wiggle room at the very end) the notion that one can program in the primary source of genuine self-respect, and that is this – “I just want to know what is the Truth”. Believe me, I’ve seen it plenty in daily life of people – how their life transforms when they get this. Novella seems to assume that ALL we ever have is pretense at self-respect. Then, his whole thesis frays. He just completely misses this fairly obvious point. Of course the mind makes short-hands, of course much becomes automated, etc etc. and of course we can and do make mistakes, all the time. But we don’t have to stay IN them, as he assumes we all will.
Well, that’s the thing that is important with what Novella say, its possible to train the brain to trigger the skeptical neurons to fire so that each round of evaluation in your head weights it towards facts. I believe many have brains trained in conspirational thinking, so they immediately try to fill the blanks with creative conspiracy – at the point it almost like bicycling, it takes no effort. The brain just brings out all these Illuminati ideas because that’s what the brain has been primed to reply to missing information.
So there is a hardwired response – as Sam Harris say – if someone ask you to think of a colour – you might think you are choosing a colour, but in fact it was your subconscious brain that brought out colours for you to pick between. The colours that arise might be from a sweater you saw on some pretty girl that just passed, or it might be that you used a lot of that colour in a project you just did. But once the thoughts are out you can decide if you want to evaluate how true the answers are to the question (in this example truth has no meaning since you just pick a colour). This is where the skeptical mind can if properly trained take over and judge facts from fiction – even if the fiction was an auto-response. It’s perfectly possible to get rid of a drinking habit, or drugs or whatnot – its possible to learn the brain the right response. And this is the essence of what Novella say – there are absolute truths, so even if you can bring out all sorts of creative ideas about something came to be – there was only one truth.
With regards to climate change I often challenge people with the fact that there are some absolute truths like physics. So if someone say that there is no sea level rise – I immediately know that since we know the planet is sucking up energy, physics should cause ocean to rise from thermal expansion. I can then focus on why the person seems to think there is no sea level rise (usually its a classic case of cherry picking spots or they make up facts). But present them with how physics work and it might prime their brain for some absolute facts about the universe. Just like gravity – we don’t dare doubt it and step out of the 10th floor to go down to the first – cause we know that hurts. 🙂
But I agree with Novella that in many regards it does not look good for the human species because we are not really evolved into being very rational creatures, hence we have to train to be one. Problem is how do you ensure that a large majority of people are? In some sense, it might require even dictatorship – much like reducing the chance of someone becoming an alcoholic, the best way is actually to forbid the sale of alcohol. But instead we try to regard everyone as responsible people capable of learning to live with alcohol in a way that they don’t abuse it. Even though any statistic would show that is not the case at all. Humans easily get lizard-brain relations to alcohol, and when confronted with their problem, the immediate response is often one of denial. So with this in mind, the best way to avoid any more fossil fuel emissions is perhaps to ban the use of fossil fuels? Now is that going to happen any time soon? Don’t think so…
“If the alien intelligence came to YOU and asked YOU, about the Human species – how is this possible? What would you say? Why do we continue to permit it? This is the great embarrassment of being human.”
Either a) the alien life is virtually the same as us and survived their own version of incompetence by sheer luck, in which case they’d see us as normal, if technologically inferior, b) they somehow managed to overcome their own limitations, in which case they’d see us struggling in the same way with the outcome in our case uncertain, or c) they were somehow genetically blessed to not have any problems at all, in which case they’d probably see us as a lower life form.
How can we not “permit” what were are? We’re a race of idiots. Of course we have idiots leading us.
So, one of my favorite things in the world is to visit art museums. But, and it’s a funny thing, I have a much greater appreciation of Western art than I do for African or Asian art. Why is that? Art is essentially communication. What we consider to be “great” art is the art that communicates to us most profoundly and evocatively.
However, I would think an alien seeing our art wouldn’t have the same regard. Our art almost certainly wouldn’t manage to communicate to them in the same way that it does to us. Our “achievements” might only be impressive to ourselves.
No, that’s just to facile. We’re not a “race of idiots”. We’re a race of people with something “like free will” (I’m not going to wade in on the existence of Free Will here – fascinating subject of course), and who chose to use it to varying degrees. In my scientific life I have seen continuous daily examples of people who chose to be evidence-oriented, and who treat their emotional reactions as important but NOT the determiner of whether an objective truth exists or not. I don’t believe we’re all genetic freaks. Makes no gut-level sense to me. What DOES make sense is that self-respect is deeply vitally important to us, as the primary motivator of our lives. If we, through short-term convenience, start engaging in white lies to others, then to ourselves, it’s easier to progress to gray lies, and in a downward spiral. Just like a spot-less new car’s owner takes great care in keeping it that way, someone who’s frittered away their genuine self respect (like politicians), have much less internal motivation to change. It can even be past the tipping point, where to acknowledge their vast betrayals simply becomes intolerable to their inner pretense of self-respect, and they will never bring themselves to go there. I take my intellectual honesty as a source of pride, and am quick to admit errors when I discover them, or they’re pointed out. I see this attitude a lot among the scientists I know. I don’t see it at all among politicians. It does take some discipline, or luck when you’re very young, to keep yourself on the right side of that ridge, and most seem to have trouble.
On Art, I wouldn’t presume to dictate whether Western or African art is “Greater”. I’d only feel confident saying what art speaks to ME personally.
“most seem to have trouble”.
Well, that’s it in a nutshell. I’m talking on one level about the majority here, and the majority determines our collective actions and our leaders. A majority that doesn’t think rationally has irrational results.
But, you’re also refusing to acknowledge a layer of rationalization that takes place with even the very intelligent. See your comment, “Makes no gut level sense to me.”
If you were really open to the evidence, you’d study the subject of free will more intensively rather than just make pronouncements based on your gut. You wouldn’t mention your gut at all.
We all, even the very intelligent, use our “gut” constantly as a way of filling in the blanks, and we’re are all riddled with blanks, or gaps in our knowledge and experience. We use other knowledge or beliefs (based on evidence or not) to fill in what we don’t know.
Additionally, it’s an evolutionary adaptation to favor comforting beliefs (either objectively true or untrue) and to rush to fill in those gaps in knowledge with comforting beliefs, because it’s psychologically debilitating to constantly question ourselves, and it has negative social impacts when one constantly questions group consensus.
On art, you confirmed what I said.
On scientists, it’s an interesting subject, because science is about fighting against assumption (one way of saying “gut level reactions”). It uses evidence to reach (at least more) objective conclusions. Scientists are pretty rigorously trained to respond favorably to this methodology, but on the general population, how many are trained in this way? 5%? At best?
And getting to your scientist friends, how many of them engage in personal rivalries or jealousies? Are there status seekers amongst them? Have there been adulterous affairs? How many engage in risky activities? Do any have a lot of children?
All of these are irrational behaviors based on our animal instincts.
Now, ask yourself, have you ever listened to a scientist you respected and found fault with something they were saying, and in finding fault, it was evidence-based rather than a gut-level response? What you are likely seeing is a gap in experience or knowledge being filled in with gut-level instinct over scientifically tested and truly rational thinking.
We ALL have this. I’m not judging here, but I am saying that our behaviors are far more irrational than we like to acknowledge.
“What DOES make sense is that self-respect is deeply vitally important to us, as the primary motivator of our lives.”
I don’t disagree with that at all. The question is, how does one arrive at that self-respect? For the vast, vast majority, it’s from simple and not-so-simple rationalizations, or methods of self-deceit. There are as many examples of this behavior in humans as stars in the universe, so it’s pointless to give examples, but here’s one – David Koch.
You say you gain self-respect by an altruistic desire to seek only the truth. My “gut” is telling me that’s an innocent type of self-deceit, and that you have unacknowledged limits to that goal, but then, who am I to say? I don’t have the full evidence to support that gut belief.
But – let’s say you are truly this way. Ask yourself – how many others are like that in the population? Are we really a species of rational thinkers with “something like free will”, or something else? Are you an example of the rest of the populace, or a tiny subset of that group?
I have recently taken online Climate Science related courses at Penn State (Prof R.B Alley), U of Chicago – (David Archer), World Bank (Stefan Rahmstorf et al) and Denial 101x, thanks John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, David Attenborough and all the others including University of Queensland and Skeptical Science. A good proportion of the first two courses covered renewable technologies especially Penn State.
We know enough of what we have done to the climate, these fossil fuel shills are wasting precious time and energy.
A brilliant pattern or prototype exists for adapting to the post Industrial Revolution age (yes that’s where we are now).
“The Solar Village is the first community in the world to produce 4x more energy than it uses”
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/407634747297107968/the-solar-village-is-the-first-community-in-the-world-to-produce-4x-more-energy-than-it-uses
With the latest thrust and competition generated by Elon Musk and Tesla in battery storage, the Solarsiedlung project will even be so much easier to rollout.
“Energy Storage Surging as More U.S. States Look to Batteries”
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/09/energy-storage-surging-as-more-u-s-states-look-to-batteries.html
So many University “Climate Science” studies are overlapping and reproducing and confirming earlier work. It is now time to train budding young Climate Scientists in energy (and maybe political studies/science).
We know much more than we need to know on how our use of fossil burning has adversely affected the Climate.
It is time to act and act swiftly . . .
Surely we all care about our future generations . . . .
Stop wasting time. . . Year after year
We do not have much left . .