 | The Bullroarer - Friday 8 February 2008 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | Climate Code Red: The Case for a Sustainability Emergency |  |
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
You make yourself sound remarkably like one of 'The chosen people', and it is unclear why you feel that you happen to be the one in possession of the truth, and that you may be entirely mistaken in your wish to 'educate' those who disagree with you, by which you seem to mean to cause them to agree with you, rather than have any wish to encourage that diversity of thought and opinion which is the necessary result of any liberal education.
Your statement:
'3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.'
is remarkably patronising, and might cause the unkind to wonder whether you are possibly the one untrained in logic and independent reasoning, and have been 'easily manipulated'
A little more respect for others, and a little less self-satisfaction might make it less difficult for others to take your opinions seriously, and that is what they are, opinions, not some revealed truth you have brought down the mountain.
First of all, I want to make it clear that the quote you took exception to was not mine. I posted it in order to respond to it.
Secondly, when you write about "liberal" education, are you referring to "laissez-faire"?
I think that it is important to educate with the goal of trying to reach a consensus because we are all in this together and we will have to work together for any hope of acheiving a sustainable, equitable, peaceful world.
Apologies for the misunderstanding on the quote.
No,a liberal education is an entirely different things to laissez-faire.
I entirely dislike any use of the word 'education', when that is a cover to cause others to agree rather than encourage them to form thoughts which may be at variance , and which should more properly be termed indoctrination, since the conclusion is pre-ordained, so disagree strongly with the source you quote.
And the idea of reaching a 'consensus' is either threatening, as it is perfectly clear that by one means or another they intend that others shall be made to alter what they think, and have no intention of changing themselves, or entirely divorced from this world, possibly a little of both.
I certainly hope that there are many that I will never be in consensus with, but respect their divergence.
We are in a world of our peers, and any attempt to put oneself on high above others is entirely illegitimate.
Hi Dave,
I think that it is important to make all people aware of the problems that we face as we are all stewards of the earth and the future. Peak oil is a huge impending problem. I wish someone of Al Gore's stature would champion it.
After the awareness problem is overcome, then we will have a better chance to brainstorm and propose solutions (and there are solutions, but it certainly won't be easy).
I think that the "agree to disagree" philosophy is dangerous. That's how wars get started. But you are right, respecting all others as equals is imperative to progress relative to peace, equity, and sustainability.
Practical said
3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.
This is also true of all of our leaders and most of their advisors.
The forecasts don't have to be complex. If presented properly, peak oil can be a relatively simple concept.
Just how do you communicate your ideas to political candidates and their advisors?
I have submitted some concise policy ideas to Clinton and Obama websites, but the chance that they will get to them are nil.
Political candidates and their advisors are intelligent people. However, they have rose through the ranks by playing the game the way that the status quo wants them to play. Also, they always have at least one eye on the perceptions of targeted voting blocks. Both these items interfere with their ability for them to see that fundamental change, not incremental, will be necessary to deal with the extant and looming problems, including peak oil.
IMHO, "training" won't help.
The structure of the human brain is dictated by random and fickle forces of evolution. Our brains were not intelligently designed and they are not put together in a way that inherently leads to logic and reason.
Until we come into better grips with who and what we are (the structure and functioning of our brains), we don't stand much of a chance in correcting the situation. When it comes to social engineering, we are mostly dabbling in alchemy. The real chemistry has not yet emerged. We're still doing the fire, sky, earth and water thing. A periodic table of the brain has not been assembled.
I think a lot of us DO understand but as the quote which appears sometimes on the top right main page of "theoildrum" in words to the effect of :
"no man will understand something which goes against what his salasry depends on "
I am sorry I cant remember who said it, and quote it accurately enough to find it.
Which is why the HTML-savvy enclose such text in <blockquote>...</blockquote> structures, so this is clear to the reader.