Remarks to the Commonwealth Club Michael Crichton (Theme: Environmentalism is really Urban Atheism)

Michael Crichton ^ | September 15, 2003 | Michael Crichton

[FreedomPoster]

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.

[RogueIsland]

Great find.

People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.

Yup.

[John Will]

"there's a place called the Rain Forest, that turely sucks a**, let's knock it down and get rid of it fast".
Just love south park.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[cornelis]

It will take some work to undo it

I'll take a step toward it by making a distinction.

The mistake of these particular environmentalists and others such kind is to assume that a total comprehensive control is possible. It is similar to the optimism of rationalism that views knowledge as sufficient to comprehend a totality of factors.

Religion, in contrast, from its earliest days, comes from the other direction. The idea in religion is that it is tied to something else (re-ligo) or relies on something else because of our limited comprehension.

The very good illustration of this view is the religous disposition of Socrates who stands alone in his understanding of limited knowledge against the Athenian intelligentsia. He attacks the sophistic thinkers and "whackos" who assume to know the whole from the part.

It is no coincidence that later Christianity found common ground with Socrates rather than the "sophists." They found common ground with him because they too were religious insofar as they denied themselves--total comprehensive knowledge and certainty--what was only the priveledge of the divine.

That is not to say that religion has problem with dogma. Gnosticism was rampant and still is. It can take its understanding of truth too seriously and so dangerously far as to eclipse the concept of humility in religion. That religious people make such errors is an indication of the nature of our humanity, especially our impatience in the face of uncertainty. However, that gives no priviledge to turn it around as an excuse against the possibility of truth.

Perhaps the point to stress is here is hubris, and not religion. Nobody has a monopoly on hubris.

[Lil'freeper]

Brilliant! Except for the praise of the FDA. It, too, is subject to the pull of politics.

[gatorbait]

"there's a place called the Rain Forest, that turely sucks a**, let's knock it down and get rid of it fast".


Remind me to tell you about my older girl's 3rd grade Rain Forest report. I cannot post it publically as it does kind of invite moderations(rightly so) .

Dave

[PoorMuttly]

Got it. FOLLOW THE LINK, MUTTLY :

"In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed."

[Lancey Howard]

WOW!
Bumped and bookmarked.

[PsyOp]

Bush, for example, turns out to be the most fiscally liberal president since Johnson, and yet people who call themselves "conservatives" love him while those who call themselves "liberals" hate him.

Spending X or Y amount does not make one liberal or conservative. What the dollars are spent on does. Welfare vs. defense for example.

The President who spends twice as much on defense as the one who spends on welfare is the conservative. Why? Because that's what the constitution says it should be spent on, when neccesary.

Most of the money Bush has spent has been on national security. That makes him a conservative in my book, as opposed to Clinton, who saved money by allowing our national defense to languish and failed in his constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.

[Tribune7]

Wow. Great post.

[edwin hubble]

Absolutely fascinating.

Strong science (procedural) viewpoint...(He's a doctor)

But, Crichton as a thinker, as one who has dealt with Hollywood,... I am amazed that he has such candor and courage.

I read his first novel Andromeda Strain in the early 70s and was amazed at how bright this guy is.

[okie01]

dirt, you'll want to read this.

[liberallarry]

Good. Very good.

I've always thought that Medieval religious thinkers were some of the best thinkers around. Too bad they are so often overshadowed by burnings, heretics, forced conversions, wars, torture, etc. when people think of religion.

[longshadow]

outstanding post placemarker

[balrog666]

Excellent read - thanks for the ping.

[ladyinred]

All I can say is WOW!
Great find!

[rustbucket]

Excellent article. I agree with most everything he says.

I suspect that a lot of people who support the environmental movement do so because they accept what they've been fed over the years by schools and the media. They simply haven't the inclination or personal strength to question what they are told. It is a religion.

[cornelis]

to question what they are told. It is a religion

Questioning is not the essence of religion or any secularity. I suppose you are happy with the thoughtless error Crighton makes to confuse bad thinking with good thinking. Vulgus vult decepi.

[Zeppo]

Thanks for posting the article - I'll have to bookmark it for future use. He has other gems on his site, for example this one...

[MainFrame65]

You know, I BELIEVE the good science about secondhand smoke not being a health hazard. But among my birth family of brother, sisters, parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins of all degree and remove, I am the ONLY ONE who never smoked, because I find the odor so uncomfortable - and so disgusting - that it chokes me.

My parents used to smoke in the car when I was small, and it literally made me so sick that I would regularly have to tell them to stop and let me throw up - and early memory that is still vivid for me at age 64. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the nonsmoking reserved area in restaurants today, and I fully believe that it is appropriate to legislate such freedom for the large majority of us that do not smoke.

But I oppose a complete ban, because I have seen how uncomfortable my family members are when they are denied their tobacco, and I have no desire to impose that discomfort on anyone needlessly.

[thegreatbeast]

Chrichton is more right than wrong on the "dime's worth of difference" view of the two major parties. Noam Chomsky(!) believes that each party is used to enact the other's agenda. And that could be true- certainly W has done things that we'd never have let Clinton get away with. (Just papering everything with tax monies after 911 comes to mind while doing nothing substantial about securing our borders.) Remember, Taxation is a form of Slavery. If we weren't taxed out the eyeballs more parents could stay home watching and teaching the kids which would pay off in so many other ways. Rush used to play a reading of Chrichton by Charlton Heston from Jurassic Park(SP?). It was a beautiful piece about the irrepressibility of Life & Nature and the true insignificance of Man when arrayed against such forces. In that book, Chrichton also gives a neat introduction to Chaos Theory.

[x]

This is a fine article that provides much to think about. It would be wrong to use Crichton as a stick to bang on the heads of all environmentalists though. When mankind was at the mercy of the environment the forces of nature were seen as the enemy, first to be propitiated by offerings to God or the gods, then to be soothed by conforming to natural law, and finally to be conquered by understanding the scientific laws of nature.

Today, mankind -- or its technology -- is in the saddle, and nature inevitably comes to look like something weak, fragile, and in need of protection. Ignorant environmentalists sentimentalize nature. Searching for a new object of veneration they go too far in idolizing the earth and denigrating humanity, but there is some chivalry in our modern attitude towards nature that one wouldn't want to lose.

There was much to be said for the passion to conquer nature in its time. We have benefited from the desire to fight back against famine, disease, scarcity, and natural disasters. And we still need some of that fighting spirit, but I wouldn't be too quick to condemn moderns for moving away from that passion.

[djwright]

I came to the same conclusion a short time ago. That the only way to understand environmentalists (including vegans etc) is to see it as a religion. A true vegan won't eat honey (it oppresses bees don't you know). If you can expain that rationally I will give you all the nectar you can eat (although I would have to oppress flowers to get it).

[aruanan]

Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

No, they were eating the brains of their dead relatives as part of death rites to show closeness and respect. They still contracted kuru, though.

Otherwise, great article. Reminds me of Dixie Lee Ray's book Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?

[nicksaunt]

Excellent read. Thanks for posting.

Did Michael Crichton actually read this speech in front of the Commonwealth Club in SAN FRANCISCO?

I would have loved to have seen the audience reaction. Crichton has probably seen his last invitation in front of that group. I am sure by the end of the speech there were about five people left in the room.

[PoorMuttly]

We fulfill his request...with thoughtfulness.

Good replies.

[cornelis]

moderns Wouldn't that be post-modern when they turn from their passion? Post-modern, as in the tradition of Nietzsche who blamed the religiosity of the encyclopedists?

[segis]

Great article bump.

[rustbucket]

Questioning is not the essence of religion

I agree with that statement.

[MrNatural]

Article-of-major-importance PING

[FreedomPoster]

>>>Did Michael Crichton actually read this speech in front of the Commonwealth Club in SAN FRANCISCO?

I expect so, and had the same reaction as you. Seeing that crowd's reaction first-hand would have been *priceless*.

[Bernard Marx]

Bookmark bump.

[cornelis]

I do too. Our difference, however, lies in this: since the acceptance of authority is something distateful to you, you ascribe it to religion. I don't think it is particular to religion. And that is why I included the term secularity and excluded it.

I apologize for imputing such a ludicrious idea to you. If it ain't you, just say so.

[cornelis]

and you excluded it

[PatrickHenry]

Here's Crichton's website.

[arasina]

Did you ever read Airframe? I learned quite a bit about aviation (and the requisite NTSB politics) from that book. Crichton is truly a brilliant man. I've read quite a few of his books once they made it to paperback. Rising Sun is another excellent novel about Japanese multinational economics.

EXCELLENT post!

[rustbucket]

I see your point and thanks. You are correct that much secular thought accepts authority without critical questioning or thinking. Fortunately, however, questioning is a key part of scientific thinking.

[Southack]

Outstandind!

[cornelis]

Fortunately, however, questioning is a key part of scientific thinking

Fortunately, yes. And unfortunately as well, not to forget. Historically we've had a bout with an acute form of this attitude enough to set up chapters of skeptics anonymous. All the -isms, including environmentalism and dogmatism have that penchant for delegitimizing the uncomfortable questions, including the god question. Those familiar with intellectual history since Kant who began his blast against the endless religious dogmatic bickering will see how that reaction ended up making gods out of other things. Step by step, from then to Nietzsche down to Foucault and then landing in the distaste of a two cruel World Wars, we throw out the baby and the bathwater to grasp after an order in the shroud of a purported chaos theory. It's Charlie Chaplin on the moon, and insufficient for political theory.

[Vinnie]

They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view.

Why do I think Democrat when I read this?

I have a dear friend that this describes to a tee.

[Dan Evans]

From reading this it seems that Crichton believes science has no use for religion. However, he's wrong if he thinks that most religious people have no use for science.

[Billthedrill]

BTT for a thoroughly enjoyable read. I have an altered view of Crichton now. And I wish I wrote this well.

[ninenot]

Thanks for the bump. If you want a slightly dated but very useful volume on the topic, check out Elizabeth Whelan (on the Internet) as an author. She blows all the enviro-crap out of the water.

The former Governor of the State of Washington (Dixie Whats-her-name) also put out a decent volume on the topic.

Finally, there's a book called "Rational Readings on the Environment" which is also a useful compendium.

[Dan Evans]

No. Early man was not decadent. They were survivalists in the literal sense. Eat or be eaten. Fight or die. Remember, we evolved just as the rest of life did on this planet.

I think his point is that many early tribes were vicious and decadent and some that were at the other extreme. There were "fierce" tribes and others that learned to get away from and to defend themselves from the more aggressive types.

Western Civilization is the latter type of tribe.

[xm177e2]

And so it runs. Environmentalism is a religion; religions kill people; therefore environmentalism is evil. This one is called guilty by association.

I disagree. He is merely saying that we need a rational environmentalist movement, not one based on myth and faith. He is merely saying that a movement seeking to influence public policy that isn't based on rationality will likely do more harm than good. The key is that environmentalists want to run public policy, they don't just want to tell parishioners what to do, they want to tell all of us what to do.

[cornelis]

xm177e2, if you make rationality the bottom line, you've a religion as good as any.

[Snuffington]

Very good article.

There is no Eden. There never was.

That was one of the major themes of Jurassic Park.

[Samwise]

So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism

Great read. Thanks for posting.

[Dan Evans]

Crichton's comments on primitive man and religion reminded me of this remark from P.J. O'Rourke:

"Greenpeace fund-raisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than tribal wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. 'Oh, no, the Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.' "

[rustbucket]

Fortunately, yes. And unfortunately as well, not to forget.

I don't see as much downside in scientific critical thinking as you do apparently. I don't blame modern wars on such thinking. There were enough attrocities from both sides during the European wars of religion. Then again, this period of 16th and 17th century history could be argued to be the result of people questioning authority and questioning what they'd been taught. However, I think we are all the freer as a result of the efforts and moral courage of those who thought for themselves.

Ah, it has been a long, long time since I struggled through Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, etc. You seem to be arguing like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, "Oh, ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, "Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men."