• In total there are 25 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 25 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Michael Shermer on Libertarianism and Climate Change

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Michael Shermer on Libertarianism and Climate Change

Unread post

An interesting article where he expresses his change of heart.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... er-beliefs
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Michael Shermer on Libertarianism and Climate Change

Unread post

Thanks for posting that. I always appreciate Michael Shermer's perspective.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Michael Shermer on Libertarianism and Climate Change

Unread post

Thanks for sharing this article Interbane. It opens up some key issues you have discussed here about motivated reasoning.

It also raises some of my longstanding interests regarding the relation between facts and values. Shermer says
"too often, my beliefs trump the scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brain reasons our way to supporting what we want to be true. Knowing about the existence of motivated reasoning, however, can help us overcome it when it is at odds with evidence."
Shermer is arguing that a scientific ethics is possible, that we can base our values on facts. He says we should analyse our beliefs, and where they conflict with evidence, we should change them.

But right here we see a confusion, about the nature of belief. We use the concept of 'belief' to refer to both values and facts - "I believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions drive global warming" and "I believe capitalist market mechanisms should be the primary strategy to stabilise the climate" apply the term belief in categorically distinct ways. The belief about emissions is a statement about facts, while the belief about response strategy is a statement about values. Traditionally, the philosophy of science from Hume says it is a logical fallacy to claim that one's values are based on facts. As Hume said, our values about what we ought to do are subjective sentiments, not objective facts.

In the two conundrums that Shermer addresses, gun control and climate change, the surface arguments conceal a complex tangle of unstated values. With gun control, a gun is a totem of freedom, a symbol of individual power, a frontier rejection of the intrusion of the state into personal liberty. Support for gun ownership says the rights of the individual should be respected, or a person showing disrespect might just find himself shot dead. It is all a bit like driving cars in dangerous traffic - people accept the trade off between the risk of death and the values of personal liberty, together with the skill that the danger builds. The risk keeps you on your toes, knowing that a wrong move could quite easily lead to death or maiming. Psychologically, people like this element of risk. In evolutionary terms it looks likely an element of uncertainty has some hardwired instinctive advantages in inculcating caution and motivating performance. Gun supporters see any criticism of this freedom as a slippery slope towards a nanny state.

Now the basic problem with all this is that such freewheeling attitudes about personal safety and risk are often seen as socially unacceptable, and impossible to voice in politically correct situations. So people conceal their opinions, just as they conceal their weapons. A concealed opinion can transform itself into an unconscious value, a totem that is accepted irrationally without the ability to explain it coherently. It becomes a matter of faith, but that does not mean the underlying rationale for the opinion is totally irrational.

A similar analysis is possible for climate change. My opinion here is that the primary driver of the political debate is not the science, but rather the conflicting values about the role of the state. Shermer says,
“it seemed to me that liberals were exaggerating the case for global warming as a kind of secular millenarianism—an environmental apocalypse requiring drastic government action to save us from doomsday through countless regulations that would handcuff the economy and restrain capitalism, which I hold to be the greatest enemy of poverty.”
This sentence is a great summary of why denialists view climate science with contempt. Dog-whistling terms like ‘doomsday’ speak to an audience who pride themselves on their freedom and rationality. The values in play here include a disdain for the view that we don’t already control nature, and a fear that communistic social control could produce totalitarian stagnation and tyranny. The climate debate overlays an old political class struggle, with environmentalists seeing the unity of the left as a strategy to control capitalism through the power of the state.

Freedom to pollute is fetishised just like the freedom to own concealed weapons, as a symbol of competitive individual excellence. The upshot here is that guns and climate polarise the red and the blue, as symbols for the type of society people want to live in, with greater value placed either on personal freedom or collective rules. I think people should recognise that these topics stand as symbols for whole worldviews, and that policy change has unintended consequences. Less guns means more conformity, and carbon tax means a more powerful government. Sometimes it is hard to tell which side of these equations are really motivating their proponents.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Michael Shermer on Libertarianism and Climate Change

Unread post

One of the commenters on the article said something similar, though not as well or thoroughly. Sam Harris also contended that facts can establish values. I think you're right that there is no logical, dependent relationship between any fact and any value. Motivated reasoning, or just plain motivation, is a big part of the explanation. I may accept human-caused warming as true, but because I have economic interests in northern Manitoba, I may think the future has good things in store for me.

It's a "what kind of people are we?" matter, in most of these cases. We need to have an ideal that values the welfare of the collective over our personal welfare, and this is where I find libertarianism fails. Libertarians believe that laissez-faire in all things will produce the best for all, just as capitalism will raise all boats. A faith-based creed.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”