Where do we go when we want a question answered about our health, our teeth, our investments, our appliances? People who have studied it a lot, people who are educated on the subject, no? Why is it, then, that when the science world releases something that is contrary to the idyllic world we've created in our own minds, we excuse away our critical thinking by saying "Well, they're just'a bunch of elist, book readin', fancy, college educated types who don't know anything about real life", or something to that effect? Don't we want our scientists to be book reading, researching, and somewhat removed from the biases of everyday life that might otherwise put them in a complacent funk? Isn't the point of everyday life to be the opposite from book reading, researching, gruelling scientific inquiry? Why then would we not listen to them when they are doing this?
I thought of this because as I decided to put my radio on conservative talk today, I heard about 10 minutes of a spiel on the "myth" of global warming. I'll first state that I do believe that human action does not cause increased global temperatures, but it seems blatantly obvious that they do facilitate and exacerbate the problem. Therefore, I'm open to hearing what scientists diagnose and prognose in that respect.
As I listened to the conservative pundit, however, I couldn't believe the asinine content spewing out of the radio...
"These 'scientists' want us to believe that an increase in Co2 is going to mean the end of times! I mean, come on now folks! CO2, that which we breathe out every second of the day, that which is necessary for plant life on this planet, is going to be what kills us? It's now a TOXIN? What's next? Too much oxygen is toxic too?"
I'm not a scientist. I'm not even a biology major (I major in both Anthropology and Spanish Literature). But, I have taken 3 classes in biology, am a former licensed nurse, and I do know that both CO2 and O2 above certain level can and will cause toxicity and eventual organ death. I'm sure the pundit might have changed his tune had he (wait for it...) consulted a BOOK on the matter before opening his mouth. He might have found that oxygen is eventually what does most damage to humans in the long run, that excess levels of oxygen cause collapse of alveoli in the lungs (which is why doctors prescribe and nurses keep oxygen tanks at set levels, not leaving it up the clients personal discretion, ya'know), and excess levels of carbon dioxide also do similar damage. There have been scientific studies that show that excess CO2 in controlled environments could actually hinder plant growth.
It's this same type of anti-intellectual populist rhetoric that fuels the anti-evolution movement, claiming it's "just a theory", setting aside the fact that had they cracked the first chapter of an introductory biology/chemistry/physics/geology/astronomy (i.e., science) book, they would note that a scientific theory (as opposed to a layman's theory) is not simply "a hunch" as they would have you believe it. It is quite another matter, one involving repeated observation and recording of repeatable and valid results. But, they won't be letting that get in the way of keeping life "normal" and "comfy" for themselves.
You see, I'm sure this 'Johnny hayseed' pundit doesn't mind book readin' intellectuals when they're doing his taxes, altering chemicals to produce the medicines saving lives, or any other non-controversial use of education. But when it comes to the environment and the possibility of having to alter his lifestyle and way of viewing the world, he becomes indignant due to the 'elitist' intellectualism in science.
Why are Americans this way, so much so that we even have to have large scale discussions on these 'debates' over whether something as widely agreed upon as evolution is taking place, or whether human actions have some effect on the environment? That is quite the question and one I'm keen on looking into.
No comments:
Post a Comment