Ignorance 101 - 319

Ten years ago, I was optimistic when I prayed for guidance and wisdom to learn about global warming. I did not know that if you pray for wisdom, you had better be prepared. One's personal worldview will not endure the pursuit of wisdom. My worldview has been challenged every week, and this week's subject was one of the most incisive.

Ten years ago, I searched for the best US science organizations to ensure I received accurate information.  I started with the National Academies of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Today, my list reaches into the hundreds.

It took some time to understand the science. Still, once I understood the basics, it was easier than my career-long endeavor to apply the laws of aerodynamics to helicopters. Even after flying and reading about helicopters for thirty years, it still seems a little magic is involved. The basics of climate science, though, have been easier and there is nothing magical about it.*

Unfortunately, I did not understand, nor do I now understand, the most challenging part of science. In the May 2021 issue of Scientific American, Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes's article zeroed in on "What Makes a Problem Hard." The Harvard University professor wrote,  "…the truly hard sciences are those that involve human behavior."

Depression hangs over the heads of climate scientists because they know the solutions to many problems but seem helpless to change public opinion. They realize oil companies with vast amounts of fossil fuel money can afford to hire unscrupulous marketing firms to exploit human behavior. Up until now, the scientists have been losing the battle.

In 2015, I discovered we might be losing the struggle to save the climate. The tragedy of the Syrian Civil War brought me to that point of despair. While Syria's incompetent government is run by a ruthless dictator, a civil war does not necessarily break out due only to incompetence and injustice. For a civil war to start, there needs to be a trigger.

The trigger was the unprecedented Syrian drought, made more deadly by global warming. The drought lasted from 2006 to 2011. It resulted in widespread Syrian crop failures, which increased food prices and then caused the mass migration of farming families to urban centers. In the absence of a competent government response, rebel groups recruited the unemployed into radical Islamic organizations. All Hell broke loose. The ensuing Syrian Civil War forced 6.6 million people to flee their country.

 One refugee who didn't make it was two-and-a-half-year-old Alan Kurdi. He drowned along with his mother and brother as his family fled Syria through Turkey in an overloaded raft bound for Greece. 

At that point, I realized the situation for many kids worldwide was dire. Very few people will die directly from climate change. If we do not mitigate aggressively, many will die indirectly, from starvation, war, or as they try to escape their homelands.  Science-ignorant governments and poor nations will become dysfunctional. As climate-challenged nations fall into chaos, more citizens will flee to survive.

 I pinned Alan Kurdi's picture on my office wall and fought back my depressive thoughts.

Since all reputable science organizations have taken a strong position on the danger and the solutions, what was keeping us from getting behind national and international policies to cure Mother Earth's fatal fever?

 Last week, I listed eleven psychological factors and cognitive biases that psychology and sociology professionals use to explain why some people have chosen to dismiss science.

Even as I wrote that article, I did not fully buy into these as the root problem. I have always felt there is a potential "fatal flaw" in human nature. Fifty years ago, I coined a term to describe my experience encountering people entrenched in indefensible opinions, "Deliberate Ignorance."

Little did I know the subject of deliberate ignorance is well-studied. Linh Vu and Margarita Leib, whose studies and profession are in ethical decision-making, recently wrote about their research in the Scientific American article, "Why Some People Choose Not to Know." (April 2024.) They use the term Willful Ignorance. Here is the first paragraph of their article:

"Willful Ignorance Abounds in daily life. People regularly look the other way rather than examining the consequences of their actions. Despite the plethora of scientific evidence for climate change, for instance, many people still avoid engaging with facts about global warming."

The authors analyzed 22 previously studied psychological studies.  They noted many people intentionally avoid information about the consequences of their actions."

Here is a summary of the study, which comprehensively investigated the psychological and behavioral aspects of willful ignorance. They found that willful ignorance is common. Forty percent of people choose "not to know" the consequences of their actions (or inactions) to avoid guilt and maximize personal gains.

In pleasant contrast, the authors also noted 40% of the people were altruistic. This 40%  actively seek information and analyze the consequences of their actions to benefit others.

The authors noted that those who practice selective willful ignorance give themselves the green light to act selfishly without feeling guilty.

The article by Vu and Leib reminded me of the many times I have offered to explain climate science and how many times people have remained disengaged.

Once, a gentleman sent me a magazine comprising many disjointed and inaccurate denial arguments against mainstream climate science.

I read them and wrote back that I could dispute all the points in the magazine he sent me and, if invited, I would travel to his location to present on those points. However, before I did all this work, I asked for his assurance that  if I could competently dispute each of the magazine's arguments, would there be any chance he could change his opinion?

I heard nothing back.

He obviously fits into the category of willful ignorers, unwilling to confront an inconvenient truth(s).

There is a reason the phrase "Ignorance is Bliss.", coined in 1747 by poet and literary scholar Thomas Gray, endures today.

Do the uncomfortable:

·       You do not have to study ten years to understand climate science. If you literally have only one minute, search: “Climate Change in 60 seconds The Royal Society”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4e5UPu1co0