You know, I was gonna wait a bit before talking about this on Hubski, but I have a semi-relevant rant here. So, on the recommendation of a friend of mine, I started reading a book called Eaarth by Bill McKibben. I'm not super far into it yet, but what I've read is pretty interesting. McKibben does a really amazing job painting a picture and it's not just bleak, it's alarmist, it's apocalyptic, and his writing is dripping with as much cynicism as it is citations. The very first chapter alone speaks at length to how fucked things look, environmentally speaking, and does so with 129 citations. This guy did his homework. While I'm not far into the book yet, I'm hopeful the tone changes, and articles like this are the reason why. If you read a lot of environmental stuff the doom and gloom in McKibben's book is pretty much par for the course and people seem to believe that things are irreversible. That world view is both lacking in imagination and faith in the capabilities of science and of our fellow man. Our attitude to the planet today, and our ability to heal it, is on par with our attitude to physical health a thousand years ago, and our ability to heal ourselves. Back then, concepts such as vaccinations, organ transplants, etc. were absolutely beyond the scope of imagination, because we didn't know enough about ourselves or science in general. Today, in regards to the ecosystem, we're just really starting to discover how things are interconnected and how to explain them accurately and scientifically. What we have on our side this time though, and will hopefully help speed up the restoration process, is a better understanding of science and better tools at our disposal. We are just beginning to scratch the surface with concepts such as restoration ecology, carbon capturing, sustainable agriculture and sustainable energy, animal reintroduction projects, and so much more. That's not even bringing to attention a gradual change in social attitudes towards the environment as well. To be fair, there's a decent chance that geo-engineering glaciers might be a dead end. But also to be fair, there's an equal chance though, that even if it's not successful, we learn something from it. I like seeing articles like this, because they show me two things. One, that people out there are trying and there is a lot of hope we can turn things around. Two, and more importantly though, they serve as reminders that a lot of environmental doom and gloomers have tunnel vision, and while their messages and warnings are important and need to be taken seriously, they're not the whole picture and we can't let ourselves fall into a futile mindset. Sorry b_b, I was stewing on that for days.
I would advise against scaling back the doom and gloom until every single human being has accepted the reality and severity of the situation. But there will be some silver linings, like job creation, yes.
The doom and gloom is gonna be there for a while, and it should be there for a while, because things are still gonna get worse and we need to know the important details, like how, where, and why, so we can properly assess and address issues. Sometimes though, I think they paint the doom and gloom too thick to the point where it might actually cause more harm to attitudes than good. To me, there's a balance, like it's possible to say "atmospheric carbon buildup is fucking nuts, here's why, and here's what people are starting to do about it." Imagine if people payed as much attention to reforestation or regrowing carbon sinks as they do Elon Musks' projects like SpaceX. Shit like that captures the imagination, it excites and energize people. It is absolutely possible to create similar excitement around environmental issues. As for job creation? Dude, I totally agree. Screwing up the planet is gonna create a whole mess of jobs out their, from disaster relief and reconstruction to medicine to ecology projects. Personally, I'd rather it not be necessary, but you're right, there will not be any shortage of work that needs to be done.
Some observers have argued that exactly this is what caused the current republican v. democrat divide vis environmental issues. We tend to forget that Nixon started the EPA, because the fucking Cuyahoga river kept catching fire (among other disasters). It was obvious people were suffering and dying due to the poor quality of air and water. So Nixon did something about it. With support from democrats. Reagan was kind of an asshole on the Environment, but he was an anomaly. Support for the EPA and environmental protections generally was very strong among both parties for 30 years. In the 90s Democrats (especially Gore) starting using the environment as a differentiating factor to win elections. So the GOP dug in. If you're going to be the environment party, we'll be the business party we've always been. The more democrats attacked, the more the GOP retreated to regressive policies that hurt all of us by claiming that they're helping "small business". Environmental policy should be non-partisan. We (the rational citizens of America) all know that. But it is. And it may be unavoidable in a winner-take-all electoral system, since if you choose heads first I must choose tails whether I like it or not. I don't know how to claw out of that well, but my feeling is that it will likely take catastrophe once again--a Love Canal or a Cuyahoga river type situation. When Miami is inundated with sea water, then we might see action. Until then, I remain unoptimistic....I think they paint the doom and gloom too thick to the point where it might actually cause more harm to attitudes than good.
In my opinion, policy in general should be non-partisan. It should be data and results driven and while conflicting ideas and opinions are part of the discovery process, digging your heels and becoming contrarian solely for political reasons is the wrong attitude to take. Things like this scenario show how detrimental partisan politics can be when it comes to reasonable and effective governance.Environmental policy should be non-partisan.
I sort of think you have it backward. Policy is about realizing vision. And vision is much more philosophical and emotional as it is rational. Going back to America's founding, the central conflicts were between the urban, strong central government, pro-banking leaders, and the agrarian, decentralized, states-rights proponents (exemplified by Hamilton on the one hand and Jefferson on the other). This conflict led to the formation of the first political parties (the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans), even though not half a decade previous, pretty much every agreed that "factions" were to be avoided. There's no amount of data or rationality in the world that can tell us whether we should be cosmopolitan or agrarian. Only our personal philosophy or belief system can inform that. What data can do is to help us realize our goals once we have set them. My stance that environmental policy should rise above partisanship is based on my belief that it's in everyone's interest to tackle large environmental problems (which we have been able to do in the past several times). Most issues don't lend themselves to this, because most issues are existential in nature. It used to be that politicians had saying that politics ends at our borders. This was in recognition of the fact that America's adversaries represented existential threats and we all agreed that we needed to present a united front to the world--it derives from the philosophical belief that the American project is worth protecting no matter our internal divisions (that's the policy vision--how it's prosecuted is where we need the data). I think that partisan politics serve a very important purpose (giving voice to the voiceless--they're the labor unions of policy). It's easy to look at our current political climate and conclude that partisanship is the problem. I don't think it is per se. I think that the problem is large and multi-faceted, and that the hyper-partisanship is a result not a cause of our problems (I think most of our problems drive from bad finance, but that's a bigger topic than I can elaborate here). If anything we need more vision, not more data. Data are the easy part.
In your estimation, do you believe it's possible to have philosophically driven policies without adhering to party politics? Do the two really necessarily have to go hand in hand? I wonder also, if whether or not we don't always implement data driven policies is because we allow partisan ideology to get in the way.
So here's something data driven: Look at every democracy in the world. They all have political parties as organizing structures. Parties take very different forms depending on the specific system, but they exist everywhere in one form or another. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get the masses involved in politics. In many ways, a couple of the founding fathers kind of thought that was the point. Madison, for example, thought that mob rule was the least desirable possible outcome from a democracy, and he thus proposed the senate as the supreme authority, and whose members would basically be appointed for life (and they would be chosen from a basic oligarchy). In this system the people really don't have a voice, even if it would certainly comprise a more "deliberative" body, as he envisioned. So you and me and your friend and my cousin and his girlfriend get together and say, "Sure we don't agree on everything, but we share the same basic values, and if you agree to support X I'll support Y," and thus our party of many can try to grab the power that otherwise would be held by the few. Parties are stand ins for your values. And in America the basic divide is and always has been rural vs. urban, agrarian vs. cosmopolitan, planters vs. manufacturers, etc. So while you and I can have our personal political philosophies, how do we connect with Tom from Little Rock and Jenny from Sacramento? Without a party structure it's essentially impossible. Again, I think the form of the question is incoherent. "Data driven policies" are not a thing. Data driven results can be, but they need to be guided by a policy vision that derives from a political philosophy. Let's say we all decide that global warming is bad and that it should be mitigated. That's the thing that matters. How we get there can be science or data driven, but science and data can't tell us what is right. Pure technocracies are probably the worst form of government imaginable. Trust me that you don't want to live in one. That's essentially the idea behind communism, and the result is always going to be mass murder. Techno-utopians crop up often throughout history and they're basically always wrong. There's no algorithm for humanity. It's up to you and me to decide what's right and wrong. "Partisan ideology" is a red herring in this case. There almost is no such thing, as the ideology of both parties is far from immutable.[Is it] possible to have philosophically driven policies without adhering to party politics?
I wonder also, if whether or not we don't always implement data driven policies is because we allow partisan ideology to get in the way.
I really appreciate the perspective. I can't say I agree 100%, but I also don't think I know enough or can speak well enough to explore the issue deeply without resulting in quibbling. You did remind me of an opinion piece I read earlier this week, The problem with utopias, that you might find interesting. I think the one thing we can resoundingly agree on is this . . . I think no matter how we decide to govern ourselves and what those systems end up looking like and how they work, if we don't govern with our commitment to humanity in mind, the results always end up being disastrous.There's no algorithm for humanity. It's up to you and me to decide what's right and wrong.