Speaking of climate change, Steven Pinker’s recent article in the NYT on “The Moral Instinct” was a fascinating overview of the possible evolutionary roots / routes of morality (and it’s a safe bet that his next book will be along similar lines), but this puzzling conclusion was shoehorned into it:
And nowhere is moralization more of a hazard than in our greatest global challenge. The threat of human-induced climate change has become the occasion for a moralistic revival meeting. In many discussions, the cause of climate change is overindulgence (too many S.U.V.’s) and defilement (sullying the atmosphere), and the solution is temperance (conservation) and expiation (buying carbon offset coupons). Yet the experts agree that these numbers don’t add up: even if every last American became conscientious about his or her carbon emissions, the effects on climate change would be trifling, if for no other reason than that two billion Indians and Chinese are unlikely to copy our born-again abstemiousness.
The language he uses to pin the moral content of environmental arguments is impossible to argue against - although it does exist, the new puritanism of environmental activists is overstated (sorry, Charlie). How we label those concerns, however, has no bearing on whether these activities will make any difference, so Pinker shifts his focus to what “experts” agree. (Although once again, you can stuff your carbon offset coupons.)
Ignore the appeal to authority - experts may agree on a lot of things, but this is not necessarily one of them - but notice the dismissal of individual agency. We’re back to a weirdly utilitarian argument for in/action on environmental grounds, an argument which doesn’t really make any sense when you stare at it too hard. How and why?
Read the rest of this entry »
