We are what we believe, but what we believe may block us from seeing life as it is and keep us tied to what we think life should be.
We need to be wary of our own assumptions about everything.
That was the focus of Jay Ingram’s presentation to the Agricultural Biodiversity conference Sept. 12 in Saskatoon. Ingram hostsThe Daily Planeton the Discovery channel.
He believes that in controversies over science, truth is an inconvenience. Arguments are not based on data, but on various social and cultural influences that filter the data.
Read Also
Anti-separatist movement targets rural Alberta
Former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk’s anti-separatism Alberta Forever Canada petition campaign expects to run full steam ahead into the province’s farming regions
In other words, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
Ingram said there are two dividing lines in the social-cultural discussion. One is between the individual and the community. Do you believe that the driving force in society is the rugged individualist or the community as a whole?
The second line is whether you see society as a hierarchical structure or a more egalitarian body. Do you believe that the people at the top should be in charge, whether you define the top in political, economic or other terms? Or do you believe that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities, including the opportunity to take part in the discussion of public goals and decisions?
Conservatives generally tend to be more individualist and hierarchical, while liberals tend to be more community- oriented and egalitarian, Ingram said. There may also be a biological element in our brain structure and how it works.
Ingram discussed the Club of Rome project, summarized in the book Limits to Growth.The study looked at population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion.
Members concluded that if the trends remained unchanged in 1971, when the study was done, the world would face a crisis in the early 21st century.
Of course those trends have changed but they are still noteworthy. However, the report, when published, was viciously attacked by opponents who, in Ingram’s words, “focused on the narrowest data available.”
I think that meant they looked at what they wanted to see and perhaps took the data out of context. That’s always dangerous.
What of today’s debates?
Is the globe really warming? If so, is human activity or normal climate trends to blame?
There is data to support various positions. But data is inconvenient. Ingram said attitudes drive the debate. People focus on data that supports their view of the world.
The same is true with genetically modified organisms. There is lots of information from which people can choose, to support or oppose these developments. And what people choose to see springs in large part from their backgrounds.
We need to think broadly, and warily, pushing ourselves beyond our own comfortable boundaries of belief , and then choose wisely. The alternative could be disaster.
Rob Brown is an ethics student in Saskatoon.
