Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Yeah, you're right.
People overall tend to not act on new scientific knowledge, but there's a difference between that and being willfully ignorant of the facts and attempting to spread misinformation.
I know that my carbon imprint can be greatly decreased, and that we all need to make large sweeping changes to have any real impact on climate change. I know those facts, but don't act on them as much as I could. That doesn't mean I deny climate change.
To have someone straight up deny things when faced with actual empirical evidence, is largely a right-wing politician practice.
|
The "glitch" in evolution is that even though our survival is more or less dependent on the future of the species, we are only capable of showing real, boundless empathy to ourselves, and those closest to us.
The pathology of climate change makes perfect sense, especially in an age with out effective mediating and meaningful institutions. For the average person, it is all about what makes ME comfortable versus the long-term prospects of the human race.
To deny the science at this point is just to accept that today's climate debate is really about taking things from individuals in the name of a vast, amorphous, poorly understood political project. This is why the Right, typically, is anti-climate change because all too often left-wing popularizers of the debate (not most scientists) swing it as some sort of techno-crusade against the industries that still employ and maintain the comfort of a lot of people (ie. oil & gas - arguably the last blue collar industry in the world).
To that end, the political debate remains a hopeless venue for any meaningful conversation about climate change, and the human species. However, it probably remains the only venue in which genuine understanding, and thus, change can emerge.
As a self-proclaimed conservative, I personally am open to the truth about climate change, insofar, as I recognize that humans are not very good at treating their home like a home. We are trashing this place, and we North Americans are pretty lucky insofar that our wealth, and geography tend to protect us from the growing adverse effects. I would probably be open to a combination hybrid/political solution to this problem, except that so far, the only solutions peddled are the insane hyper-distributionist and utopian fantasies from populists on the Left (see Naomi Klein).