You might think that public
figures, especially those who believe they might run for President, should
acquaint themselves with the facts before pontificating on important topics. It
is obvious they do not. Take the recent case of Marco Rubio, for example, who
announced publicly that he does not believe global warming has anything to do
with human activity in spite of what the scientists say. The facts of global
warming are well known and easily available by now, fully 97% of the world’s
scientists agree on the matter, the evidence is also all around us at the
moment. Still Rubio doesn’t believe it. I suppose Rubio has a right to believe
any nonsensical thing he wants, but he should not be permitted to run for any
important or influential office, especially President, as his opinion on this
matter will get us all killed. It could be the case that Rubio actually has
considered the facts, either researched them himself or had his aides do it (which
I very much doubt) and still concludes he doesn’t believe it. He still doesn’t
believe it because he doesn’t trust or believe in science. If this is truly the
case he has no business in any position of influence, authority, or power.
Rick Perry is a similar case
in point. He recently indicated that homosexuality was more or less a choice
and that it might be cured. That homosexuality is not a matter of choice but a
matter of genetics is by now well established. Perry, like Rubio, fancies
himself Presidential, but has obviously not bothered to study the facts about
something he claims is so. Again, the facts are easily available. Perry and
Rubio can both be said to be inexcusably ignorant. Even worse they seem to be willfully
ignorant. Such individuals have no business in government, assuming that
government is supposed to further and protect both individual and national
interests. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that anyone who professes not
to believe in science could be elected President in the 21st
century.
How is it that this kind of
anti-science inexcusable ignorance is even tolerated in a world fraught with
such dangers and so dependent upon rapidly changing technologies and
information? Magic, myth, and fairy tales are not sufficient for dealing with
the real and contemporary world. I suggest this kind of inexcusable ignorance
is tolerated in the United States because, in fact, people like Rubio and Perry
do not exist in a vacuum, they are merely swimmers in a veritable ocean of
inexcusable ignorance. The ocean of ignorance we currently must swim in has
come about slowly over the past couple of decades. It can be seen in the
deplorable nature of our public schools, the low status and salaries of
teachers, the privatization of schools, the efforts of Christian fundamentalists,
and the general ethos of anti-intellectualism that has characterized our
culture for some time. We hear of “pointy-headed intellectuals,” the derogation
of teachers (“them as can’t do, teach”), budget cuts at all levels, and the
conversion of our Universities and Colleges into, basically, trade schools. The
idea of education or knowledge for its own sake has long since disappeared. The
United States, which used to lead the world in most everything, has slipped
badly when compared to many other countries. We appear to lead only in the
category of military spending.
I do not believe this tragic
situation came about by accident. Although I am not much of a conspiracy
theorist I think in the case of this blanket of inexcusable ignorance there has
been a conspiracy of sorts. Those in power have deliberately “dumbed us down,”
so to speak. They have taken over the news and turned it into “infotainment,”
have refused to adequately fund our schools at all levels, have resisted all
attempts to help people with education and have, in fact, made University
attendance virtually unaffordable, preferring instead to make a profit from our
students and schools. This is shameful. The result of their actions over time
have brought us to the point they apparently wished to achieve, a class society
in which there are only two classes, the obscenely wealthy (“aristocrats”) and
the poor (“peasants”). The peasants, being ignorant, are easily controlled and
exploited and less likely to revolt (revolutions usually begin with
intellectuals). This system of ignorance may be inexcusable but it is not
difficult to understand. It keeps the poor “in line,” insures low wages, and
glorifies exploitation. It also allows inexcusably ignorant individuals to
attain high public offices.
Does anyone even care anymore
who becomes President? The powers that be don’t care because they choose the
only candidates and know they will control him or her in any case. The voting
public may think they care but their only choice nowadays is between the
ignorant and the idiotic. Wall Street always wins.
“Free election of masters does not abolish the
masters or the slaves.”
Herbert Marcuse
1 comment:
The fact that you were a professor of anthropology indicates you probably understand no more about the empirical sciences and the statistical disciplines that are supposed to be the underpinnings of climatology (not an empirical science, by the way) than those public figures you are deriding. While I don't disagree that the standards of scholarship in the modern era are deplorable, I suspect my reasons for believing so are profoundly different from yours. In any case, an individual's rejection of the "Science and Scientists say so" argument put forth as the most frequent vindication of the truth of anthropogenic global warming is hardly indicative of ignorance. On the contrary, those who use that argument are often the most academically intellectually inadequate themselves to judge the state of the facts. I hold degrees in chemistry, physics, and classical languages – and am also not prone to conspiracy theories – but those of us who understand what the true nature of science should be (not socially or politically, but historically and philosophically) have to wonder how much conscious volition among participants constitutes “conspiracy” when we see the slipshod and (to use the vernacular) “piss-poor” brand of science behind the current mania regarding “climate change” (a pleonastic and meaningless phrase, by the way).
Post a Comment