In most things, I am not a proponent of blind faith. I am a professional skeptic whose cynicism runs really really deeply. But let me talk to you about an exception to that rule.
I was listening to NPR this morning because I am a city-dwelling liberal elitist who never developed a taste for country music, guns, Sean Hannity, or the American way. During my 5 minute trip to take my son to school, I listened to a report about a 15-year-old girl who has become a champion of the group of people who doubt that humans are responsible for global warming.
This girl seemed really smart. She was impressive. She had done a ton of research. And she had come to the conclusion that humans are not responsible for global warming and that cyclical climate change was to blame. She gets lambasted for bad science by most grown-up researchers, but she generally fires back that their science is bad. I think that’s the scientific version of calling someone a hater, but that’s a different post.
Unfortunately despite all her intelligence and considerable determination, this particular young lady and the global warming haters who champion her are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if global warming is caused by humans or not. You should still believe it.
Let me explain. If we believe that global warming is caused by humans, rightly or wrongly, we all become environmentalists. After all, what do the scientists behind the theory tell us to do? Clean-up industry, recycle, improve gas mileage, explore alternative “clean” energy sources, carpool in the meantime, protect the forests, don’t pollute. That’s about it.
It’s the global equivalent of your mother telling you to clean your room. If you’re anything like me you whined, “but why mom!!!” And if your mom was anything like mine she replied, “because it’s filthy and no one should live like that.”
Doesn’t the same sentiment hold true on the larger scale? Our planet is filthy. You can’t drink the water, you probably shouldn’t breathe the air, and I can find a Snickers wrapper in even the most remote patch of forest. If we had a collective mom, she’d be screaming at us to clean our room. “But why!!!” Because it’s filthy and no one should live like that. Failing that she would probably lapse into “because I said so.”
So think about that for a minute. Even if I believe we are causing global warming erroneously, the actions that my belief leads me to are good for me and for everyone else. Even assuming for a moment that skeptics of global warming are right, what good does that do any of us? It gives industry a free hand to pollute, it boosts the auto industry’s bottom line, but what good does it do any of the actual people that live here?
Like I said earlier, I’m no fan of blind faith. But this seems like the exception to that rule.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Is it really necessary to believe that global warming is caused by humans? It seems wholly beside the point. All we really need to know is that global warming exists and that the climate change is detrimental to our way of life. We also should believe (or at least find out whether or not it’s true) that we can help the situation. That is enough to establish that we have a duty to clean up our mess, blame or no blame.
The problem with belief as a means to an end is that it has latent affects. You know, like people’s belief in Christianity simultaneously being responsible both for great acts of charity and horrifying violence. Sometimes we need to jump to conclusions and hang on to them because we simply don’t have all the answers. The human brain is made to assume and to believe when essential information is lacking and a decision must be made. But reason tells us we should delay belief as long as it isn’t absolutely necessary, or bare the risk of being dead wrong.
Reminds me of when you said, “They shouldn’t free Mumia. They should get him a new trial.” Remember that? If we all believed he was innocent, a great overhaul of the justice system might take place in Philadelphia and perhaps other districts, and that would be great, but somehow it isn’t acceptable to take that risk.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I have a taste for country music, guns, Sean Hannity, and the American way. But then again, I am the ranking Republican member here at Chrisco Spins. OK, the *only* Republican member…
April 16th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I don’t think that many people would argue against the statement that global warming is taking place. However, there are two camps with very different ideas about why it is happening. One camp (this would be the sensationalist dooms day group) would like to argue that it is all due to dirty humans that probably like to spend their free time either clubbing baby seals or driving their SUV’s. The other side (guess which one I’m on) would point to evidence that earth has gone through sveral drastic climate changes before and that this is because our climate cycles between two extremes over very long periods of time (there have been ice ages and periods of extreme heat before). If the second group is right then we as humans are no more capable of preventing global warming than we were of starting it in the first place. However, this does not preclude us from being responsible consumers of natural resources. Even if we aren’t making the temperature rise we certainly impact our environment through the choices we make.
I can choose to be a responsible person and try to lessen my impact on the environment simply because it is the right thing to do. Just like I can be a good person just to be a good person and not for fear of some firey pit or a man in the sky. My point being that blind faith is NEVER the answer and probably leads to more destruction than good. Putting your faith blindly into anything only allows you to relinquish control and avoid taking any responsiblity for the consequences of your actions.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Marina, I would totally agree except for blind faith in the value of being good. How do you know moral uprightness for its own sake is worth it? How do you know your efforts tend toward virtuous ends? Or is the purity of your intention enough (I doubt you’d go that far)?
We don’t know. We cannot know. Yet, for some reason we believe that there is a point to doing the right thing, and we cling to our concept of “right” when we may not even know what that is. There must be some minimal level of faith needed to live life.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Yeah you’re right, I spoke incorrectly. What I should have said is that my actions are governed by the consequences I face as a result of them. I’m more likely to buy a hybrid (if I could afford to buy a car) because it makes me cool and I get a tax break. I don’t rob banks because I don’t have the resources and also because I really don’t want to go to jail. It is still not about faith (yes I believe in the system but I can also observe what happens to other people who rob banks and buy hybrids). I still think that the people who believe blindly in the cause are the ones who drink the cool-aid, or worse destroy life in the name of a cause. If something is worth believing in then shouldn’t it be possible to provide some kind of support for it?
April 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I’m no rat-debraining scientist, but I agree with the scientific approach to things. However, I also understand that there are things I just won’t know in my lifetime and that, despite this ignorance, I still am better of having a the blanks filled in.
I think of it like algebra. You might not know the answer you’re looking for, but if you stick the variable X in the empty spot and solve the equation around it, you know something. You know what information you need to obtain to solve for X. In that sense, people need to be able to make assumptions, leaps of faith, if you will, to hold us over until we have solved for X. By guessing what X might be and acting on those hypotheses, we are slowly, over generations, experimenting our way toward a better understanding of universal truths. The only way this approach will work, however, is to go ahead and believe some things until we have better data to disprove it.
In addition to the experimental value, belief is also valuable because it preserves our ability to function in a world we do not quite understand. Like believing that you are loved makes it possible to get through shitty days. We need faith to calm ourselves down because the stress of disappointment and confusion on a regular basis would make us crazy.
Sometimes, the things we believe in will fail to hold up against fact, but a certain failure rate is to be expected. That doesn’t mean we should never believe anything until we can prove it. After all, our proofs could be wrong too.
I’m not saying you should drink the Kool-Ade. I don’t think you should assume that humans caused global warming. I agree that there are many beliefs (most, even) that are unjustifiable given the information available.
But aren’t there some beliefs that are worth having, even if you can’t prove them at all?
April 17th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I don’t know about any of that. But I do know that both of you need to know how to spell Kool-Aid. Neuroscientist and lawyer my ass!!!
April 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
If it’s any excuse, I never drank the stuff.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Nat, you don’t know what you missed. Mmmm… Kool-Aid. OH YEAAAAAHHHH!
April 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Why would you spell cool-aid with a K?
April 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Klever marketing.