There's an old joke. What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? Answer: I don't know, and I don't care.
Old, but is a nice summary of the current state of political involvement. Each makes real change difficult. Together they make it impossible.
There's a line between ignorant and stupid -- although it's a very busy crossing.
Stupid is the 21 percent of Americans who Gallup says believe in witches and warlocks; the 18 percent who believe the sun revolves around the earth (plus the 3 percent who had no opinion); and, in another study, the 23 percent of American women who would rather lose their ability to read than their shape.
Actually I'm fine with that.
As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does." If you believe that witches come out when the sun goes around to the other side of the earth, and it's better to be hot than literate, chances are your impact on my life isn't going to be all that great.
It's ignorance that scares me.
By ignorance I mean the determination to fit the wide world of fact into the tiny confines of personal belief. The scorecard of ignorance, at least my definition, is growing. Stem cell research is evil. Global warming is fiction. Barack Obama is a Muslim. Saddam caused 9-11. Healthcare legislation will set up death panels. Sarah Palin is the one we want to sit down with world leaders.
People who think like this are very likely to vote.
And they can elect candidates like a leading Republican primary contender who said that being part of the debates was a mistake -- because it put him up against all those fancy fast-talkers. They can give a national platform for another contender who looked straight into the camera and linked a life-saving vaccine to retardation.
Ignorance is both embracing and forgiving to its own. That is where apathy delivers a one-two punch to our prospects.
Ignorance loves apathy the way flies love road kill. It feeds on it. It consumes fact, and truth; common sense and common good. The hard lesson of history is that we can wake up to find that it has found its way into our lives.
Apathy can come from laziness. But I think just as often, especially today, it comes from a loss of hope that things can actually change. We are slogging our way through decades of disappointment -- from government to Wall Street to the church to media to freakishly large men who hit home runs. Different day. Different assault on trust.
For many of us, the most recent -- and in some ways most bitter -- disappointment is the first term of Barack Obama. We thought we had elected something new and different. Now, the evidence is mounting that we elected something that is very much the same.
You could counter that the "occupy" movement is anything but apathetic. Actually, it deposits us in the same place. Arabs wanted a change in regimes. The occupiers want -- what? "Hey-hey, ho-ho. A bunch of different things have got to go." The chants go on, the garbage mounts.
The drift toward violence may reflect the realization that if you can't change the power structure, you might as well smash its windows.
Can we shake off our apathy, connect reality and marshal a productive counterattack against the forces of ignorance? Right now, the odds aren't looking all that good.
Follow Dr. Peggy Drexler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drpeggydrexler
1.Scientists that study global warming have incentives to find that global warming exists, that it is caused by CO2, and that the impacts will be large. All of the above justify more money for their research. Their conclusions are projections decades into the future and are generated by models with many assumptions. (Similar to the risk analysis models used on Wall Street). 2.Politicians are self interested people. They will use global warming as justification for policies and special interests they already support.
3.Benefits of global warming: Areas of the world will respond differently to global climate change. Some of these changes will actually benefit the people that live there. Habitat for some species will expand others decreases. Crop production will expand in some areas and contract in other.
4.Time value of money: Most analysis puts a very low value on the time value of investment. At a 7% return $100 invested today has to yield $86,000 return in 100 years to be justified.
5.Technology: Over the last 100 years as well technology has advanced at an amazing pace and smart people are gain access to education and modern information every day. So the process is likely to continue to accelerate. Consequently there will be new capabilities to deal with problems caused by climate change.
Given the above how is it irrational to be skeptical of investing to prevent global warming.
Who will invest in technology to mitigate climate change if people like you and your friends, big oil and big coal, say it's not a problem?
Your argument is internally contradictory. But it seems to be a trend among the denier crowd these days. Now you guys admit that climate change is occurring but we can ignore it. Used to be you'd claim it was not occurring.
I think you are suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
Oh, and item 4 above? Whaaat?
I am not sure about your comments on Koch and Exxon. I fully support elimination of all direct tax payer subsidies to them. Just don't fall into the trap of claiming things like war, military spending, roads... Are subsidies to oil companies.
note: number 4 that confused you so is just the way you calculate a return on investment. Spending current $ for some future gain has a cost. And when the benefit is 50-100 years in the future it takes a large return to justify the investment. (if your question was something else I apologize I did not understand, please clarify)
You did ask who would pay for mitigating climate change. The first question to answer is, How much is it worth to mitigate climate change? Given the uncertainty around costs and benefits, long time horizon and reality that governments do a poor job of spending money, I would say it is worth little investment now. Continue to fund research and allow the scientific process to work.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
2) through 5) Affect the future, but they do not affect science or scientists
You seem to be VERY POORLY EDUCATED on what the issues are with OWS and where this is all eventually going. There are VERY WELL ORGANIZED in this. Knowledgeable people know EXACTLY where this is all going to go: we must now deal with WHO is to have the MONEY POWER in a civilization. The problem is the current Money-As-Debt Usury Extortion Fractional Reserve Banking System invented by the Bank of England in 1694. It has now all come to a crisis point.
THE SECRET OF OZ - Bill Still
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI
LIFE INC. - Douglas Rushkoff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBWhVe68os
WEB OF DEBT - Ellen Brown (1 of 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU0XiklHPMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2atnm1oTjJ8
THE BEST 3,000 YEAR ANALYSIS OF "MONEY"
http://www.monetary.org/
"THE LOST SCIENCE OF MONEY" by Stephen A. Zarlenga
http://old.monetary.org/lostscienceofmoney.html
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE MONEY POWER
http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/32-page-brochure-sept2011.pdf
KUCINICH and CONYER'S HR-2990 PROPOSED CRISIS LEGISLATION
http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/HR-2990.pdf
PRINT READY FLYER MATERIALS
http://www.monetary.org/demonstrations
http://www.old.monetary.org/radio001.mp3
http://www.monetary.org/podcasts
If conservatives can lead people to believe that Obama is a Muslim and global warming is a hoax, why can't liberals lead people to believe that health care is a right and that government for the people is not socialism?
People are thick we always have to take the longest most arduous route to our destinations and leave a trail of destruction behind us. You have to take the long view, the really really really long view, this is not a natural human instinct.
How about education? If there is such a fuss about the student loan program why not have a national education system that has free education up to the doctorate level. Teacher pay would be proportional to the grade being taught and only adjusted for inflation.
Ted Kennedy, as if anticipating this back in the 1970s, tried valiantly to get some nationalized health care through, but interestingly enough, those who could've benefitted from it in terms of reducing their costs (US industry) didn't get behind it, believing then as now it was "socialism" and so health care festered and the middle class has suffered greatly for it. It makes you wonder if US industry wasn't just looking for an excuse to shed jobs and knew exploding health care could be their ticket to seek out that cheap labor.
That statement alone shows ignorance in the fact that people expected one man to change government all by himself. People were looking for something which was impossible outside of Hollywood. In real life, no one man can change a country without the people helping to make that change a reality. He's not a god, nor is he superman. He's a normal human being with high hopes of making things better "for the people" and he's doing it one step at a time, but not on the level of a Hollywood movie event. People are looking for "miracles" and they don't happen in real life. If we want change, we must "all" make that change happen.
You're so right though on the extent of the ignorance in this country because we have had powerful people destroying our education systematically for eons. Only those of the class of elites in the oligarchy are the ones who receive the education necessary to enter this capitalistic society and make their dreams come true. We keep getting knocked back on our feet with no hope of moving forward because of the greedy few who wants it all. The country needs to be reeducated to "real life".
This terrible, Randian attitude shared by most Americans is the true reason things have fallen so far.
If if you doubt this "social contract" of selfishness isn't rampant in this country think about the idea that if we truly were a nation of decent, kind hearted, "christians" as we claim to be the Republican party would not even exist let alone be the dominant force in America. The GOP, who are nakedly evil and greedy, are thought of as completely legit and normal by (nearly) all Ameiricans.