Over the beginning of the new year (2007), we went "up North" to Bemidji, MN, to visit with my cousin Samii. On Saturday evening, we watched Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Sunday afternoon, we went over to an Aunt and Uncle's house for lunch, and to play cards and visit.
Over lunch, the topic of Gore's movie came up, and we began discussing the movie, global warming, and environmental issues in general. I was genuinely surpised with the generic "Christian" attitude toward global warming and the environment held by my relatives, especially my cousin Isaac, and the ease with which they became offended when I suggested that blithe dismassals of the issue are rooted in willful self-delusion and fear of the lifestyle changes demanded by an acknowledgement of the problem, as well as of the inconvenience such changes cause. The conversation quickly moved on to other matters, to forestall any harsh arguments over lunch, but I took away three points from my discussion with Isaac that annoyed me:
1) Isaac pointed out that even Gore's movie showed that the overall global temperature fluctuates over a long period of time, and suggested that we are in a standard warming period, that will be followed by a cooling period in turn. What he failed to mention is the point that Gore was making: we are now on a warming trend that is way of the chart, and shows no signs of decreasing...actually, it shows every sign of accellerating out of control. This picking and choosing of which information to pay attention to is typical of conservative rhetoric, and bears a close resemlance to taking lone Bible versus out of context to support one's viewpoint...a practice that I frankly find disgusting and disturbing.
2) Isaac made the comment that it would be pretty arrogant of us to assume that we, as humans, can significantly impact something as massive as the climate of the planet. I find that statement irksome...I would say, rather, that it is pretty ignorant of us to assume that we cannot significantly impact the climate of the planet, especially in the face of a mass of convergent evidence showing that we are doing just that.
3) He also said "people believe what they want to believe". I would rather say that people believe what they believe...desire has nothing to do with it. I can want to believe that Santa Clause comes to my house every Christmas Eve and delivers presents under the tree, but I won't believe it, in the face of a giant pile of convergent evidence to the contrary. Many people base their beliefs on the best evidence they have at hand, and are willing to change their beliefs based on strong evidence to the contrary (these people are called Scientists), but many people also have the ability to discount strong evidence and believe only what is most convient for them...these include those religious ones who cling to their obviously false beliefs due to fear of having been wrong all their lives, fear of change, and fear of actually having to change their lives in a way that is inconvenient to them. Some people want to believe what is true, and they make an effort to fidn the truth, some people want to believe what is easy, and take it for granted that what their chosen authority has told them is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment