It isn’t novel to suggest that we live in a culture (in the ‘developed West’) which encourages us to see the world in a childish, almost infantile way. Almost every value which has an impact on everyday life is narrow in scope and simplistic. We prefer surface over substance in almost every imaginable way: physical appearance, ‘bling’, youth, the preferring of immediate gratification over distant benefits. The list of ways in which this might be manifest is almost endless.
What does this have to do with climate change?
It is arguable that this cultural characteristic – if indeed it is one – is one of the principle ‘background’ causes why the concerns of scientists and others are, if not ignored, at least pushed aside in the order of priorities, not just for the general public, but also for policy-makers, in particular in the USA (and here again, I mean the current administration). In a world where what matters is immediately-to-hand, to paraphrase Heidegger, and what we ‘want’ (like a four-year-old child) is more pressing than what is ‘good for us’, looking ahead and seeing the bigger picture simply doesn’t register on the mind.
There are plenty of rational, intelligent people who are able to look ahead, and are able to have a more mature outlook on our prospects, but there are equally a number of otherwise rational and intelligent people who seem unable to grasp the concept that considering the future is an important thing to do, both morally and sensibly, and that in so doing, we should appeal to reason and knowledge (often, but not exclusively, represented by science and academia) for guidance and direction.
But how do I, we, anyone who writes, blogs or argues about climate change, start to talk with others, who choose not to share our concerns about the future? As with politics, if the principal engagement with issues takes places at the immediate, personal or local level, then these are the levels at which we can hope for a response from individuals. This doesn’t mean that we must abandon the ‘wider vision’, but that it may need to be placed in a context for our audiences. Like other bloggers, I find it difficult to know who my audience is specifically, and, in responding to other blogs, or getting feedback from them, it is easy to slip into a group mindset which responds to itself as broadly ‘rational’ and not to ‘others’ for whom this is an opaque, confusing dialogue.
You might object that such an attitude is exactly the reason why ‘dumbing down’ is an issues in our society; not only does it imply a patronising attitude to ‘others’, but also it panders to the cultural childishness by simplifying, making immediate, and trivialising the whole subject which gets us going. This is a bit of a quandary; should we be playing by a rulebook which inherently undermines the very concern which needs addressing, that of the future, or do we need to start the entire ‘Enlightenment’ project all over again?
The causes of the current ‘Age of endarkenment’ (gosh, that looks like it was written for The Simpsons) are many and various, and what lies at the root of the current situation does matter, but more pressing still is the fact of our cultural situation: somehow, we need to help others to start seeing the world in a more ‘grown-up’ way, and to start valuing things more substantial than celebrity, triviality and ‘toys’ (possessions) . At the same time, we need to engage the minds of these selfsame others on the consequences to them of their indifference, not only for themselves, but also for people distant in space and time.
This seems to imply that the purpose, or agenda, of those amongst us for whom climate change is the ‘defining problem of our generation’, must be one of bringing a new enlightenment into our culture; in other words, to educate, inform, and thereby to liberate those who choose to live in a shallow world. As to who might be the object of this liberation, whether our audience should be the current administrators of our society, or the people they are supposed to represent; this can be the choice (and relate to the talents) of each of us.
Here is a proposal and a suggestion, then; the proposal is that an important, perhaps central objective of writers on climate change should be to provide the necessary education. The suggestion is that, in an age where the light of reason is everywhere beset by ignorance and superstition, that we share the common goal of ‘bringing a new Enlightenment’ into the world.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 22, 2008 at 12:54 pm
kent j
You think that believing in man made climate change makes you enlightened?
Are you CRAZY??????
Children are starving because their GOVERNMENTS won’t let them have food. People don’t get water because DICATATORS DICTATE who gets what technology.
You are a puppet of Al Gore.
True enlightment comes from supporting freedom. Free markets. Freedom from government oppression. Freedom of speech. Freedom to raise your children as you see fit. Freedom to be able to protect yourself from rape (with a gun). Freedom from being tortured and murdered in the womb.
These are a few beliefs of enlightened individuals.
June 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm
fergusbrown
Hi Kent and welcome.
No. What makes a person enlightened is the acceptance of reason as a means of establishing truth and the valuing of both in contrast to superstition.
This would only be crazy in a world in which the values are turned upside-down.
Children are starving. If we do not act to mitigate future climate change, more children will starve.
People are without water because access to safe water is dictated by market forces, not moral ones.
Who is Al Gore? Perhaps he is one of my followers?
Freedom is important, but it is only possible and significant when certain other basic and inalienable rights have already been secured, such as security from violence and access to sustenance. Free to starve is not free at all; it implies a specific kind of bondage in which whole nations are in thrall to market forces which they have no chance to control, and no power to resist.
There is no such thing as a properly ‘free’ market; all significant markets are managed and subsidised where necessary by central government via taxes and budgetary controls.
The oppression of inequitable laws or excessive regulation is trivial in comparison to the oppression of hunger and pestilence, of need and greed and warfare.
The person who raises their child in an environment where superstition and prejudice hold sway over truth and reason is perpetuating the problem for future generations.
The person who carries a weapon designed to kill is more able and more likely to kill than the person who does not. Problems such as rape and violent crime are not prevented by the right to possess weapons; otherwise, the USA, Afghanistan, and so forth, would be the safest places to live. Are they?
What is in a womb is not a person by any useful definition. Freedom to choose for a woman should not be denied on the putative grounds of the denial of rights to a nonexistent other.
And none of these things have much to do with climate change; whether or not it is happening is not a political or moral question, but an issue of fact. What to do about it is a moral and political question. Denial of the responsibility for a changing climate is effecively condemning millions more to starvation, thirst, disease and enslavement than any supposed and imaginary constraint on your personal liberties (which are, after all, less secue than you imagine them to be).
What might make you enlightened would be the ability to cast aside your dearly-held beliefs and consider the vidence for climate change in a rational manner.
Wishing you well,
June 2, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Mesquita
WOW! You do express your thoughts well. Congratulations. I stumped into your blog after I googled “what age are we living in”. I agree that there is undoubtedly, a correlation between mankind’s inertia towards acting on climate change and the cultural ins and outs of the present day.This inertia is an intrinsic human characteristic. Most people have family values and see the greater picture, they are not individualistic, they are good people and yet they possess the same inertia. Had climate change happened at any other past cultural frame in history and I think mankind would face it with inertia. Maybe is a way of nature to level out. Ignorance is bliss. And the babies of today are moulded shallowly, so they grow shallow. Nature as the last word. For Her, humans are not special, they just are. Peace
July 23, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Chris
Doesn’t matter what age we live in. We need both enlightenment and endarkenment.
People are too caught up in trying to balance the two terms, and most of the time end up choosing one who makes them weak.
I chose enlightenment at first in my rite of passage in spiritualism. After a while I realized I had picked the wrong thing. And chose to follow the path of endarkenment. Now I know you can’t have one without the other.
To kent: I hope they lock people like you away forever. Freedom of speech should be banned… You could learn something from abit of solitude.
September 5, 2009 at 1:10 pm
fergusbrown
Hi guys,
sorry for the delay in responding, the blog has taken second place for a while.
Thanks for the positive comments, mesquite. These days, my concern is that too few people seem able to reason effectively. Too much communication is affect, too many responses immediate and personal.
Historically, people seem to have responded via adaptation to threats, but the scale and distance of the climate change threat makes this difficult.
Chris; I had an interesting argument with someone about the relationship between the rational and the spiritual. I entirely agree that we need both perspectives, playing off each other. Purely rationalistic being might be inadequate as a mode of existence, purely spiritual might also be.
Don’t worry about Kent; he is trying to find his answers, but has perhaps got a bit lost. Freedom is a function of wealth and state-generated security. Kent is some kind of Libertarian (‘follower’ of Ayn Rand’s philosophies). Libertarianism is an elitist, exclusive, inequitable philosophy.
Thank you for visitng. I hope there is more for you to read soon.