Global Warming as Apocalyptic Thinking

It is a good thing that not many people read my blog or I would set off a fire storm with this next claim. However, I believe, that the current obsession with global warming is yet another example of apocalyptic thinking. Bear with me as I make my case.

First, let me say that I agree philosophically with much of what the global warming movement is concerned about. We are wasteful of our resources. We are overly dependent on fossil fuels. We should learn to live in harmony with our environment. We are living a technologically subsidized unsustainable live style.

The problem is that these are philosophical, perhaps even spiritual beliefs. When people try to make them scientific claims, in support of their beliefs, I have a problem with that. It is like saying 96% of all atheists go to hell. Therefore you should be a Christian. Or in a more realistic vein, one might claim that religious people live 14% longer than non religious people. There are lots of good reasons why one might choose to be a Christian. But, statistics about atheists are not among them.

Using scientific data to shore up philosophical beliefs is always problematic. Don't forget that 'scientific' data was used to prove racial inferiority in the 19th century. So, I am always concerned about the barrage of 'scientific' data used to support the global warming belief system. Why? I believe that underlying this movement is subconscious vein of apocalyptic thinking. Following the subtext model from the previous post consider this subtext of global warming:

1) We have gotten off track. We have sinned. We had allowed our greed to consume us. Our consumption is our of control. We have failed to show respect for things greater than ourselves. We have engaged in the sin of hubris thinking we are greater than we are.

2) Things will be set right by forces beyond our control: We must pay for our sins. We will suffer. We will be punished. The earth will strike back at us and we will be exiled, once again from Eden. Glaciers will melt. Seas will rise. Populations will die. Fertile farm lands will become dessert.

I don't mean to suggest that there is not a problem we should be concerned with. We have way more people on the planet than we can sustain without substantial technological leverage. If it weren't for technological advances of the past couple centuries, Malthusian cycles would have kicked in. But technological subsidies are not limitless and the Malthusian cycles will kick in at some point. Fuel efficient cars and alternative energies may buy us a little time but they do not solve the problem.

If we were serious about solving the problem we would be talking about population control rather than whipping ourselves up into an apocalyptic religious frenzy that avoids the real problem.

Well, for those of you who do read this blog and are fed up with my ranting about apocalyptic thinking, you will be happy to know that in the next post I will move on. Thanks for your patience.

The Y2K Bug as Apocalyptic Thinking

There are two key elements to apocalyptic thinking. First, we have gotten off track some how, and, second, punishment will be doled out or things will be set right by forces beyond our control. Neither of these components holds up well under scrutiny. But, the beliefs that make up our worldview are generally unquestioned assumptions about reality that do not hold up particularly well under scrutiny. If they did hold up well under scrutiny they would be part our scientific knowledge and not part of our worldview. (Of course, belief in science is a part of our worldview that also does not hold up well under scrutiny. But, that is another argument for another day.)

The claim that we have gotten off track some how suggests that there is a track that we should be on. If there is one, it is largely one of our own construction. That is, we believe a bunch of things about how the world should be and when our behavior varies from those beliefs, we feel we have gotten off track.

Second, as discussed earlier, there is a difference between retribution and likely outcomes. If you run across a busy street there is a good chance that you make get struck by a car. To suggest that you 'deserve' to get struck by a car suggests that our moral equilibrium is being enforced by transcendental powers.

Consider the subtext of the Y2K Bug. I apologize for the dramatic wording but, I believe that it helps make the point.

1) We have gotten off track: We have sinned. We have been seduced by the idol of technology. We have given ourselves over to technology sacrificing our free will and free spirits. We rely on technology for our very being. Our worship of and reliance on technology is just modern day idolatry.

2) Things will be set right by forces beyond our control: We must pay for our sins. We will suffer. We will be punished. The coy mistress of technology will turn her back on us leaving us vulnerable to loosing all that we find holy. Banks will fail. Airplanes will fall out of the sky. Medical technology will take lives instead of saving them. As people struggle to survive, civilization may come to an end.

When the clocks ticked over to the year 2000 and nothing happened, did anyone ask - why? Did anyone try to justify their beliefs? No, because beliefs are beliefs and require no justification. Believers still believe and will point to all the effort that went into preventing the problem. Disbelievers still disbelieve and see all the spending leading up to the year 2000 as money wasted. Never the twain shall meet and it will never be resolved.

Remember the Y2K Bug?

It hasn't been that long. A little more than a decade ago, in the time leading up to the new millennium, there were dire predictions about the potential impacts of a bug in computer software known as the Y2K Bug.

The premise was very simple. Since the 1960's dates were represented in computer programs as a two digit number. So, 1968, for example, was represented as 68. You could always tell which year preceded another year because the earlier year would have a lower number. 68 comes before 69 and so on. However, at the turn of the millennium, this was no longer true. The year prior to the change in millennium would be 99 and the next year would be 00. So, any bit of decision logic within a program that relied on subsequent years having a higher number would fail.

There were, no doubt, many software programs that contained this flaw so I don't want to dismiss it out of hand. However, what is really hard to believe was the extent to which the implications of this flaw were extrapolated. As the clock ticked over to the year 2000 computer systems throughout the world would just shut down; crash from the Y2K bug. Elevators would stop working; Planes would fall out of the air; Life support equipment would stop its life support functions. Even more dire consequences were batted around. It could be the end of life as we know it. It could be the end of Western civilization.

Less dire but more personal consequences were predicted. You won't get your bills on time so you can't pay them on time. Since you don't pay your bills, you will loose your house and car and your good credit score.

And, yet, none of that happened. Why not? And why did we ever believe it would?

Let me offer a few observations. I am reluctant to use the word 'facts' as 'fact' are a matter of perspective and perspectives on this issue were all over the map.

First, the less one knew about computer systems the more likely one was to believe in the Y2K bug.

Second, most computer software, especially that written by competent software professionals, would not have this problem.

Third, if software written by professionals did have this problem, fixing it would be a fairly straightforward maintenance task.

Fourth, the real focus of this problem was computer code written in the 1960's and 1970's by non professionals who not only created the date problem but wrote such poor code that maintenance would be a nightmare. The underlying problem here was not the way the date was represented. The underlying problem was the lack of maintainability of the computer code.

So, there was a real problem but it was of very limited scope and very limited consequence. How, then, did this get extrapolated into the end of civilization as we know it? The answer, I believe, is that it is a great example of modern, secular apocalyptic thinking. And that will be expanded upon in the next post.

Examples of Apocalyptic Thinkings

There is no shortage of examples of apocalyptic thinking throughout history. Certainly, Old Testament prophets who railed against the evils of society were a classic example. Society had gotten off track some how and the judgement would come. We see this repeated as recently as in the early days of the United States where a series of religious revivals called Great Awakenings sprewed forth apocalyptic hellfire and brimstone rhetoric. The most recent of these was barely a hundred years ago. So this is not an artifact of the far distant past.

There is also no shortage of incidents where people thought the end of the world was coming. Most recently, we had a fascination with the Prophecies of Nostradamus regarding the new millenium and when that did not happen, we turned our sights to the Mayan Calendar prediction of the world ending in 2012. In fact, there was a blockbuster movie made with that name (2012) and exploring that theme. So, again, these ideas are not just artifacts of the distant past.

There are more striking examples of apocalyptic thinking in recent years. David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidians, more common know as the Waco sect, believed that we were in the end of days. And the enormous popularity of the Left Behind Series (a series of books about the rapture) suggests that apocalyptic notions still capture the interest of many.

But, are these just examples of people far from the mainstream? Or do regular, otherwise normal, people show signs of apocalyptic thinking? They do, and the examples may surprise you.

Apocalyptic Thinking in Practice

Equilibria are very common in nature. But, are equilibria enforced by laws of nature or by a higher power? If you believe that an equilibrium is enforced by a higher power and that the equilibrium is based on human values, then you are engaging in apocalyptic thinking.

Consider a few examples. Let's say that a child constantly talks back to his or her parents until the child gets sent to his or her room; or some other appropriate punishment. We might say that they got what they 'deserved'. If somebody consistently performs poorly at their job until they get fired, we might also say they got what they 'deserved'. In these two case the 'higher power' (the parents in the first case and the boss in the second case) brings things back into an equilibrium based on human values (respect and hard work).

However, if we turned a glass full of water upside down and the water poured out, we would not say that the water got was it 'deserved'. The water simply followed the laws of nature. But, with people, at what point is the equilibrium enforced artificially and at what point is it merely natural law? If somebody spends their money foolishly and goes bankrupt, is that artificial or natural? If a company goes backrupt due to mismanagement is that natural or artificial? If an economy goes into a recession after a period of growth, is that natural or artificial?

Clearly, at some point, equilibrium have natural and not artifical causes. However, if you beleive that all equilibria are the result of intervention from a higher power metaphysical or divine, you are a card carrying apocalyptisit.

Next we will look at some examples of apocalyptic thinking in history up until modern times. In the following posts, I will provide some very recent examples to show that apocalyptic thinking is still alive and well.

Elements of Apocalyptic Thinking

The roots of apocalyptic thinking are so fundamental to the way we see the world that it is difficult to see this as anything other just the way the world is. However, it is not the way the world is. It is the way we see the world. Before attempting to justify that claim, let me lay out the elements of apocalyptic thinking.

First, there is a belief that their is a 'right' way that things should be and they have gotten off track from that. Second, if we don't do something to set things right, forces beyond out control will set them right for us. Further, there is an element of retribution in the forces beyond our control setting things right. That is, there is some element of punishment for not have kept things on track for ourselves.

Let's say that an unfortunate investor put money in a lot of risky "get rich quick" schemes and landing up loosing everything as well as incurring a lot of debt in the process. Consider the following two statements.

1) He got what he deserved for trying to get rich quick.

2) The probability of loosing everything increases as the riskiness of investments increases. However, there is also a chance you could win big. There are also possibilities for small losses or small gains.

The first of the two statements is more of a moral assessment than an objective assessment. People should work hard and invest prudently. If they do not, bad things will happen. The second allows for the fact that when people gamble, some people actually do win. So retribution is not built into the fabric of reality.

We would like to believe that retribution is built into the fabric of reality. Consequently, we tend to notice instances where the apparent retribution takes place, while ignoring cases where it does not. Thus, our selective data gathering tends to support what we would like to believe is the case.

There are several problems with the elements of apocalypticism. First, the 'right' way is something we impose on the world based on our human values. Doing all the 'right' things makes the human race prosper and grow. This probably not the 'right' thing for the other inhabitants of the planet. Second, the forces of nature are, well, the forces of nature. They do not bring things back into line with human values. They just do what they do. Third, although we do see elements of equilibrium in nature, equilibrium is not retribution.

We apply this apocalyptic notion of retribution to issues of all sizes from individual to social to global. And the magnitude of the retribution ranges from small hand slaps to total destruction of human life. In the next post we will take up the range of applications of this notion.

Religious Roots of Apocalyptic Thinking

About 3,500 years ago a Persian prophet named Zarathustra asserted that Gods could not be good in some cases and bad in others which was the case, at the time, in most polytheistic mythologies. He said good is good and evil is evil - setting the stage for later beliefs that the earth is a battleground between the forces of good and the forces of evil. This world view, at the risk of being simplistic, allows evil to gain ground at times only to be pushed back by the forces of good. The tension between good and evil is at the heart of apocalyptic thinking. Even if one does not believe in good and evil as a religious doctrine, the underlying concept can also be found in secular thinking. People who believe in balance and harmony see imbalances or dis-harmonies being brought back into balance and harmony as an aspect of the natural order.

Another key religious doctrine is the concept of interventionism. This can best be understood in opposition to a well know opposite doctrine. Deism, a religious view that became popular after the enlightenment, claimed that God created the world and left it to run on its own. Their view can be summed up easily in an example. Let's say you have two clock makers. One made a clock that runs perfectly and requires no further work. The other made a clock that requires constant attention and repair. Who is the better clock maker? Clearly the first one is. The deist view of interventionism is that it is like the second clock maker. Why does God have to intervene all the time? Why couldn't he have just made the world perfect and let it run?

Despite the strengths of that argument, most people are interventionist. They believe that God has a hand in things that go on in the world and that he steps in from time to time to set things right. This notion of the forces of good stepping in to set things right provides much of the religious basis for the apocalyptic view of the world.

Psychological Roots of Apocalyptic Thinking

There are two uniquely human cognitive or psychological characteristics that lead to an apocalyptic view of the world. This will not immediately make sense to the reader. But, I ask your indulgence as I develop the argument. One of these characteristics is our ability to imagine and the other is our moral sense.

Our ability to imagine allow us to, among other things, envision a world different from the one that exists. We can see a world with farms instead of chance discoveries of grain, domesticated herds rather than following wild herds, man made shelters instead of caves. Our ability to imagine allows us to create societies, governments, economies, technologies and so on. Because we can imagine a world other than the one we live in, we sometimes see the imagined world as better and try to bring it about, or wish to have it brought about.

Our moral sense allows us to see beyond our basic needs and consider the needs of others. Others can include other people we know as well as people we don't know and future people. We sometimes even extend our moral sense to animals and nature. Our moral sense allows us to consider a world in which fairness, justice, respect, orderliness, and predictability figure in heavily.

Given our imagination and our moral sense, it is possible for us to envision a world, unlike the world in which we live, where fairness, justice and so on rule. It is also possible to desire to bring such a world about or desire to have it brought about. And it is this desire, I believe, to have a fair and just world, that provides the psychological basis for apocalyptic thinking.

Allowing Possibilties

Another way to increase your mental flexibility and improve your ability to be proactive with new ideas is to take an idea that you may normally reject out of hand and allow the possibility that it may be true - or, at least, that it may have merit. We tend to see life as black and white, and even the shades of gray do not allow for the variety of possibilities that are really out there. Is monarchy better than democracy? Would society be better if everybody was not equal? Should there be a mandatory age at which people are terminated? I choose these examples because they are ideas that most people would not even want to consider.

However, each of these ideas does have merit. And by finding the merit in these ideas, you can see that it is better to consider ideas than to reject them out of hand. I suspect that most people, after considering them, would still reject them. However, consider this: Monarchies can be more efficient than democracies. Regardless, of what we might want to believe, everybody is not equal. And as people age, their maintenance costs increase while their productivity decreases. Might that money not be better spent on younger people?

This exercise is useful to see that even the most offensive of ideas still have some merit. And that raises the question - what other ideas that really do have merit have we simply rejected out of hand?

In the following few posts I am going to consider a question that I alluded to earlier. In our modern secular age, do people still believe in the apocalypse? I am gong to argue that they do. I am going to argue that the children of the enlightenment are not nearly as secular and modern as they like to think that they are and that there is abundant evidence that apocalyptic thinking still dominates our modern world view. Do you think I can convince you? Well, stay tuned.

A Willing Suspension of Disbelief

I borrowed this phrase from William Coleridge who said that the enjoyment of fiction requires "A Willing Suspension of Disbelief". In other words, you have to believe, at some level, that the fictional representations are or could be true. If you read fiction with skepticism, you may fail to fully appreciate the literary experience. However, I would also like to apply this phrase to the advancement of knowledge.Which, in my opinion, also requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

At any given moment in time, most of what most people believe is not fully true or possibly out right wrong. We are constantly changing, updating and modifying our shared bodies of knowledge. These changes can come in huge jumps like Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity. And they can come in little hops like the decision to exclude Pluto as a planet. Personal knowledge changes as well. Anyone can attest from their own personal experiences that things that they used to believe no longer seem to hold. The question is - how do we get from one position on what we believe to be true to another position on what we believe to be true?

It seems to me that this can be done, generally, in one of two ways: proactively or re actively. We do it re actively when we simply cannot hold an old view any longer. We do it proactively when we allow for the fact that new evidence may arise and that we may have to change our minds about some things. If we are being really proactive, we can anticipate the implications of new information and consider what might possibly be true as a result. And if we wish to be proactive, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

I am not going to judge whether it is better to be proactive or reactive. This is probably a matter of personal taste, personality, disposition, flexibility and any number of other things. I can say that for me, the preference is very much in the proactive camp. I prefer to know what might be true long before it becomes established. However, for the sake of fairness, I am going to look at the pros and cons of being reactive versus being proactive. Then I will develop an example - apocalyptic thinking. Yes, it could be true.