Last weekend's Los Angeles Times included a curious essay by Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert titled "If only gay sex caused global warming." How can you resist?
The basic thesis, drawn from evolutionary biology, is threats are meaningless without a face to associate. To wit:
...global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to -- what they know and want, what they are doing and planning -- has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them.
Hard to argue with that. But I think it simplifies the challenge just a wee bit.
The thinning ozone had no face, yet we managed to tackle what until then was the most serious global environmental threat to be identified. (Sometimes I think people forget just how big a problem it promised to become.) True, it was relatively easy to fix, but the example does violate the threat-without-a-face principle.
But perhaps that's nitpicking. Read the whole thing. If anything, the headline writer's efforts should be rewarded with a few minutes of your valuable time.
- Log in to post comments
But don't you think we identified the ozone problem with something we had to 'replace' in our cars and refrigerators? So, in a sense, it had a recognizable face? The analogy otherwise is good - we made changes, the situation improved. It puzzles me why people are so recalcitrant regarding some simple conversation issues - not even necessarily people, but governments. Geez, I live in the south and want to build a house, and I'm having one hell of a time finding a contractor who's willing to do solar. Craziness.
Oops, the Intelligent Designer must not have seen this one coming...