While we all live on earth and suffer from environmental degradation and climate change, these matters have become political weapons. On the left, the outer edges engage in attacks on the existing political and economic systems. They tend to characterize business as willing to harm or even kill us to stack up more profits. This allows conservatives to cast those concerned with the environment as radicals who are out to destroy jobs. As such, those on the right often regard any concerns about the environment or extinction of species as leftist plots to destroy their beloved capitalism. In many cases, this view has been manufactured and fed by economic interests to a degree that results in an outright rejection of scientific evidence and empirical experience.
Since environmental issues have become intensely political and baked into the tribal identities of the political parties it is very difficult to discuss environmental concerns rationally in the public arena. After all, if many of those in power are dedicated to denying that problems even exist, it becomes extremely difficult to work on solutions. This is analogous in some ways to trying to address drug addiction when the addict refuses to accept that there is even a problem.
In some cases there are those who have a clear economic interest in denial or opposition. For example, the heads of industry tend to want to avoid health and safety regulations that would cost them profits. It must be admitted that some regulations are needlessly burdensome, but this fact does not prove that all regulations are bad. There are regulations that are clearly just, such as those that aim at protecting people from serious health threats. These are also regulations that are just in the sense that they aim to put the burden of the costs on the industry rather than allowing them to shift costs onto others. For example, restrictions on dangerous pollutants put the cost of dealing with them on industry, rather than shifting them onto the people in the contamination areas in the form of damage to their health.
Even in cases in which regulations would impose minimal costs or even provide benefits, companies tend to fight them. This might be due to mere ignorance of the benefits. For example, the railroad owners initially opposed safety equipment for trains on the grounds of cost—but it turned out that this equipment advantageous. There is also the possible influence of ideology—that the market should be free of state regulation. Of course, this ideology seems rather tolerant of restrictive regulation that benefits the established companies (think, for example, of the effective cable monopolies). There is also a strategic advantage in opposing all regulation—if one yields nothing (even to beneficial regulation), then it is easy to hold off any other regulations. Individuals also oppose regulations for similar reasons, often under the influence of the companies that dislike those regulations.
It would, obviously enough, be wrong to try to force regulations onto companies that would be ineffective or harmful. It is equally obvious that just and beneficial regulations would be morally acceptable. Aside from those who oppose (or love) all regulations, these two claims are quite plausible. It is also obvious that people disagree about where particular regulations fall; that is, whether they are beneficial or harmful. Matters are also complicated by the obvious fact that regulations tend to involve a mix of harms and benefits and sorting them out is challenging.
While I am sometimes cast as an anti-business leftist, I do recognize the importance of companies in human civilization. I rather like living in a technological society with computers, supermarkets and airlines. That said, I also recognize the importance of having a healthy ecosystem. So, I hold that there needs to be a careful balance between our technological civilization and the ecosystem of which we are a part. Unfortunately, the various sides have tended to weaponize these matters and demonize each other, thus making it rather difficult to create and implement rational solutions to real problems. The gist of the problem is that even reasonable proposals get made into straw men and are often attacked savagely with well-funded ad campaigns. This, obviously enough, is not conducive with creating and implementing rational and just solutions.
Since I teach philosophy professionally, I am aware of what Aristotle said long ago: reason is the weakest form of persuasion. Having taught critical thinking for decades, I know that people are best swayed by fallacies (logically defective arguments) and empty rhetoric (no argument at all). As such, the best way to motivate acceptance of rational and just regulation would be to avoid logic and use the tools of rhetoric and fallacies to get people to accept them for the wrong (or no) reasons. This can, of course, be justified on utilitarian moral grounds. However, a philosopher should feel some shame (as a philosopher) for using such methods. But, perhaps, it is possible to win people over with reason. This will be discussed in the next essay.
TJB says
November 7, 2018 at 12:22 pmMike, the key insight you are missing is that big business loves regulations because it gives it a competitive advantage over small competitors.
The challenge in a capitalist system is always to keep the market competitive and the playing field level.
Michael LaBossiere says
November 8, 2018 at 5:18 pmI know; the cable companies use that to kill the free market competition in the monopoly zones. So, I am against regulations that are weaponized to make things worse for consumers.
whitewolf71 says
November 7, 2018 at 12:55 pmIn some cases, the possibility of regulation is put to a ballot. This regulation can often take the form of outlawing certain things. The recent ballot here in Florida had a vote on outlawing dog racing. Of course, immediately people think, if someone wants to outlaw dog racing, this must mean I’m helping dogs that are being abused by voting to outlaw it.
The law passed. Now dogs will be put to sleep, grey hounds that love running will no longer do so, and people are out of work. I would bet 90% of the vote was emotional and not based on anything voters knew about dog racing.
A problem with regulation is that nobody really knows what the outcome of regulations will be. The regulations often do not accomplish what was promised, and there are always unintended consequences. People are generally uninformed on technical matters, and even the experts disagree. Frame a problem with certain language and you can nearly always get sympathy from the masses. Shame people about “not believing in science” and you can get a few more votes for CO2 regulation.
While voting yesterday, it was apparent that I would have had to have spent weeks studying each proposed amendment to have a decent idea on how to vote. As it was I looked over the ballot for about an hour two days prior. So I am skeptical about human ability to regulate these things in a politically charged environment. If I thought regulations operated like scientific trial and error, I would be less skeptical, because if a regulation was showing obvious flaws, a good scientist would discard it and start over. As it is, we get stuck with bad regulations so that politicians can protect their political turf.
WTP says
November 7, 2018 at 10:09 pmAnd you put in more effort than 99% of the voting public. TJ’s point above about regulation being a favorable thing for big businesses is also mostly correct but to be clearer, it favors the politically connected, thus reducing the “fairness” of markets that some people often whine about desiring. Those who can do, those who can’t appeal to government to carve them out an exclusive market. A company, big or small only has so many resources. Once their competition gets hold of government and lawyers its way to fashion regulations to its specific advantage, the other companies must get into the game or lose out. And the lawyer scum take from both sides. People are not educated about these things. Though it’s not like we don’t have institutions that could be informing them. Wonder what the hold up is? Double entendre intended.
whitewolf71 says
November 8, 2018 at 12:54 pmMaybe you heard about this:
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/audience/david-whitley/os-ae-darryl-sheppard-david-whitley-1107-story.html
Michael LaBossiere says
November 8, 2018 at 5:23 pmSo, 59% are competent? Not bad. 😉
WTP says
November 9, 2018 at 2:29 amMagus,
As I am in Seminole county, it was not on my radar per se. Though until a week or so ago I was regularly watching the morning news, yet saw nothing regarding this. I also dropped the Orlando Sentinal about a dozen years ago, though as I recall David Whitley was just about the last reporter in the entire organization left there whose articles i could stomach. I dropped watching the morning news (channel 9 here…WFTV) a few weeks ago because, while almost every commercial was from lawyers, it is now overtly “presented” or “sponsored “ or whatever by the most disturbing ambulance chasing lawyer in FL, Ga, and possibly beyond, John Morgan. Since this sponsorship started I have noticed a very hard turn to the left by what was until very recently one of the most straight forward local news stations in the area. That said, and given what a shithole, relatively speaking, Orange County is to Seminole county, it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Over the last dozen years or so I’ve had coworkers who lived in what was once the better areas of Orange, including Orlando itself, move out of the entire area because of their perception that “Orlando” was going bad. Initially this confused me but as I have come to understand the increasingly significant difference between the quality of life between the two counties, it makes perfect sense given their perspectives of reality.
Michael LaBossiere says
November 8, 2018 at 5:22 pmTrue; I read through the amendments and researched them; but for many I was still unsure of the implications and consequences. Also, I dislike having amendments that should just be put forth as laws. As I see it, the constitution is the core rules of the law: only the big stuff should be in there. All the other stuff should be in the supplement books, that is the normal laws. Greyhound racing should be a matter of legislation, it is not fundamental enough to be part of a constitution.
I did vote yes on restoring the right to vote, since that seemed to be straightforward.
TJB says
November 7, 2018 at 6:42 pmPic is from India. Smog problem there is mainly due to farmers burning stubble in their fields.
Michael LaBossiere says
November 8, 2018 at 5:23 pmYes; Getty images is heavy on foreign images (at least for the free to use). But the location of the picture is not relevant to the arguments.
WTP says
November 9, 2018 at 2:38 amNot relevant. Of course not. And yet still a complete crock of shit. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
DH says
November 9, 2018 at 3:06 pm“Since I teach philosophy professionally, I am aware of what Aristotle said long ago: reason is the weakest form of persuasion. Having taught critical thinking for decades, I know that people are best swayed by fallacies”
You may teach philosophy and critical thinking, but you do not always use what you know. This essay was not written by a philosopher or critical thinker, but rather a leftist ideologue who has placed himself right in the midst of those “best swayed by fallacies”.
The fallacy I’m talking about, of course, is “Begging the Question” or mistaking a premise for a conclusion.
“While we all live on earth and suffer from environmental degradation and climate change, these matters have become political weapons.”
Translation: We all know that climate change exists and is anthropogenic, that is an indisputable fact. Therefore, anyone who does not believe it is a science-denier and wrong”.
Yes, yes, I know you didn’t say that, but as your leading argument, it sets the tone for the rest of your essay. The fact of the matter is, that no matter how much you might believe this in your heart and go along with the “settled science” people, there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue and we simply do not know. Nor can we predict the future with any sort of accuracy.
For you to begin your essay with that statement as fact, you are beginning with a fallacy.