I am a proud member of a group called the Clergy Letter Project, started by Michael Zimmerman ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman.) That means I take part in Evolution Weekend. Each year, on the Sunday closest to Darwin's birthday, I preach/teach about the compatibility of science and religion. It's an important message to deliver.
But lately I find that I am no longer addressing the chief front of anti-science rhetoric. Sure, there are still plenty of narrow-minded, misguided folks of faith who wear their intentional ignorance as some sort of proof of their piety. This is sad, and must be engaged. But I am finding more and more that faith and science actually share a more formidable opponent: profit.
This is a strange and imperfect point, since much of our current scientific inquiry serves commercial purposes, but here are a few examples of what I'm thinking:
Climate Science: The reality of global warming is undeniable. For a long time, it was popular with a certain crowd to deny this fact in the face of a tsunami of data. As that stance has crumbled, the more recent retreat position is to deny human causation. This has little to do with science and much to do with commerce. The fossile fuel and related industries are powerful and ubiquitous. They are central to our way of life. Reality is no longer a friend of ours.
Epidemiology: In conversation with one of the more informed folks I know, yesterday she mentioned a farm in Pennsylvania with three separate populations of cattle, each of which drank from a different water source. One population of cows experienced a 3000% increase in mortality rate (from two to 60 annual cow deaths) after hydrofracking operations had commenced near the stream from which they drank. The public never hears of these cases because financial settlements for damages include a blanket gag order. How can we possibly make informed decisions if evidence is thus suppressed? How many other paths of epidemiological inquiry are shut down or shut up to protect financial interests?
Education: It is now quite popular with a certain crowd to attack teachers and educational institutions. Ask yourself what motivates such attacks.
I have not yet fully formed this opinion. It is more of an inkling that I'd like to flesh out or throw out through dialogue with my peers. What do you think? Are there monied interests suppressing certain areas of scientific inquiry?
Are there monied interests suppressing certain areas of scientific inquiry?
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say "yes". And I would suggest there is some complicity or even duplicity in supposedly non-commercial institutions. Why else would the populace of our state know of the probable side effects of hydrofracking, yet our state governments seem to be unaware of them? That NY's government won't ban hydrofracking outright and continues to "look into it", tabling decisions for a while (waiting to see if sentiments against it die down?) could indicate they are looking for ways to help the energy companies see their way to success.
When queries about their inaction have been answered, job creation is the usual excuse. But there could be plenty of job creation in further pursuing and subsidizing green technologies. I suspect there is money to be made depending on what their final decision will be, and there is a weighing of the danger to political careers that is the primary measure of risk.
Pardon my cynicism. When the government of the people seems to be deaf to the people, my suspicions are aroused.
I think that the corporate machine is interested only in how much and how completely it can milk dry their human cattle and then consume their financial resources, minds, and health. By promulgating ignorant positions and denying evidence to the contrary, they stifle and subjugate any meaningful resistance to this juggernaut.
ReplyDeleteWow...this is kind of similar to what my latest post is about.
ReplyDeleteWe are lucky enough to have access to so much information, but many people choose to ignore it out of convenience or fear. If I recognize that my actions endanger not only my health but that of others, I must take responsibility for my actions. That involves making sacrifice for a greater good, and that is something that our society discourages- sometimes even openly. We believe that we have a right to live destructive lifestyles, and it seems that those who stand to make a profit off our consumption do everything they can to reinforce this belief.
In a world where how much "stuff" you have determines your value as a human being, conspicuous consumption is a very difficult habit to break.