FANTASY IDEOLOGY AND THE NEXT STAGE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

Fantasy Ideology

I was introduced to the concept of fantasy ideology when I read Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History by Lee Harris (My review is the book is here).  Here is how Harris defines the expression.

For want of a better term, call the phenomenon in question a fantasy ideology–by which I mean political and ideological symbols and tropes used not for political purposes, but entirely for the benefit of furthering a specific personal or collective fantasy. It is, to be frank, something like the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons carried out not with the trappings of medieval romances–old castles and maidens in distress–but entirely in terms of ideological symbols and emblems. The difference between them is that one is an innocent pastime while the other has proved to be one of the most terrible scourges to afflict the human race.  (from here)

How do people become captivated by a fantasy ideology?   One thing that helps is that fantasists do not appreciate the significance of concrete reality.   Consider the Al Qaeda terrorists who crashed jet aircraft into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  How could they have been so naive as to believe they were accomplishing anything useful?  In his book, beginning on page 26, Harris observes following about the source of Arab wealth.

If we look to the source of Arab wealth, we find nothing that the Arabs created for themselves.  Wealth has come to them by magic, much as in a story from The Arabian Nights, and it allows them to live in a feudal fantasy land.  What the Saudis and Saddam Hussein have in common is that they became rich because the West paid them for natural resources that the West could have simply taken from them at will and without so much as a thank-you, if the West had been inclined to do so.  They were, by one of the bitter paradoxes of history, the preeminent beneficiaries of the Western liberalism that they despise and reject.  Their power derives entirely from the fact that the West had committed itself, in the aftermath of World War II, to a policy of not robbing other societies of their natural resources simply because it possessed the might to do so.  Nor does it matter whether the West followed this policy out of charitable instinct or out of prudence, or out of a cynical awareness that it was more cost-effective to do so.  All that really matters is the quite unintended consequence of the West’s conduct:  the prodigious funding of fantasists who are thereby enabled to pursue their demented agendas unencumbered by any realistic calculation of the risks or costs of their actions.

Too many Arabs achieved wealth without the benefit of confronting the hard work.  They bypassed the learning and experience that ordinarily comes with prosperity.   So they have unrealistic expectations about the way things work.

Environmentalism as Religion

Some years back I ran into Michael Crichton’s assessment of Environmentalism.  He begins thusly:

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.  (continued here)

Crichton goes on to explain how Environmentalism has become the religion of modern urban atheists.  Instead of providing age old wisdom that informs, Environmentalism teaches the restoration of an Eden that never was.  What worries Crichton is that by making a religion of environmentalism, we have so politicized environmental science, we must inevitably make bad decisions.

Environmental Fastasies Run Amuck

On Friday, the EPA took a big step.

Cars, power plants and factories could all soon face much tougher pollution limits after a government declaration Friday setting the stage for the first federal regulation of gases blamed for global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a big step in that direction, concluding that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a major hazard to Americans’ health. That was a reversal from the Bush administration, which resisted such a conclusion and said it would be costly for companies to meet new emission limits and therefore could harm the national economy.

“In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem (and) the greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare,” said the EPA, concluding the dangers warrant action under federal air pollution laws.   (continued here)

Is the threat real?  Even if it is, are we dealing with that threat appropriately?

Learning Science and Technology

Thinking is hard work.  Just like a complex puzzle, we put together difficult concepts with grueling effort one piece at a time.  Since most people do not like to work hard, that is probably one reason why People are Idiots! We refuse to make the effort or to take the time to connect the dots.

Many years ago I decided to be a scientist.   Why?  I grew when the United States was doing everything it could to put a man on the moon.  I had a fantasy that drove me.  I too wanted to be an astronaut, but those in authority confined my fantasy to its proper place.  So I made a commitment, and I believed some how some way I would fulfill my dream.  I got sidetracked into the Air Force and space defense instead.  The fantasy receded.  Eventually I retired and now maintain computer infrastructure, but along the way I learned a fair amount about mathematics, chemistry, physics and biology.  I also learned a bit about how people must work together to accomplish anything useful.

The process of gaining knowledge and experience can be profoundly frustrating.  We can never learn it all or do it all.   No matter hard I have tried, for example, many aspects of advanced mathematics left me baffled.  With time I might have learned some of the more advanced math, but that would have left little time for anything else.  I had to choose an area of expertise.

Some time back I read the The Dilbert Principle by Scott Adams.   Adams observed we live in a society invented by a few people.   Just consider all the details in the act of picking up a cell phone and calling someone.  How does your voice get from your phone to their phone?  Do you know?  I call people everyday with a phone I did not design.  I drive a car I did not assemble.  I eat food I did not grow.  I live in a house I did not build.  I wear clothes I did not stitch.  It is humbling to know I am not one of those few people who invented any portion of our society.  In fact, my labors produced almost none of it at all.

Under the Guidance of an Aristocracy of Lawyers

Now that the EPA has declared that stuff we exhale, carbon dioxide, a pollutant, what happens next?

The EPA’s action marks a major shift in the federal government’s approach to global warming. The Bush administration opposed putting mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, on the grounds that they would hurt business, and the EPA had resisted identifying such emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

What happens next is unclear. The agency’s proposed finding is likely to intensify pressure on Congress to pass legislation that would limit greenhouse gases, as President Obama, many lawmakers and some industry leaders prefer. But cap-and-trade legislation, which would limit emissions and allow emitters to trade pollution allowances, is fiercely opposed by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats from fossil-fuel-dependent Midwestern states who fear that such a system would raise energy prices and hurt the nation’s economy.  (from here)

Congress and the Executive branch, our aristocracy of lawyers, will try to come to a deal.  We have a question that should concern us.  Does our aristocracy of lawyers have any idea what they are doing, or are they living in a fantasy, one where we too fantasize — that they know what they are doing?  What do lawyers know about science and technology?  What have they done to demonstrate they can identify and solve environmental problems?

Some time ago I wrote a four-part post about our aristocracy of lawyers (last post here).   I observed that the lawyers who lead us too often refuse to recognize the limits of their knowledge.  At the time, I did not appreciate the significance of fantasy ideology.  It did not then occur to me to think just how naive lawyers might be about the nuts and bolts of our society.   Do lawyers really appreciate what it takes to build houses and power plants.  Do they understand how goods move to market and farmers grow their crops?  Do they believe scientists and engineers will just wish the technology for practical electric automobiles into existence if Congress makes a law?

If Congress really thinks carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then the simple, straight forward solution is to tax the production of carbon dioxide.   If Congress comes up with more complex and hard to understand schemes, such as cap and trade, we should be wary.   Instead of doing their jobs, our aristocracy of lawyers is fantasizing at our expense.

Will Congress and the President insist upon exercising authority in areas where they have no competence?  Of course they will, and that should make the rest of us very much afraid.  Try to imagine.  What would lawyers fantasize?