A couple of weeks ago (how time flies!) I linked and quoted a bit from Brad Allenby's May column. It bears repeating.

Under conditions of systems and ontological complexity which push people beyond their adaptive capacity, retreat to fundamentalism -- religious, environmental, scientific, philosophical, ideological -- is a common response. Unfortunately, such responses are profoundly dysfunctional . . .

It is not that fundamentalism or ideologies are necessarily “bad,” although they have certainly spilled their share of blood in the past century. But it is very clear that they are especially maladaptive in periods of rapid and fundamental change.

If, then, the major adaptive mechanism to dauntingly rapid change, fundamentalism of various kinds, is dysfunctional, what is one to rely on? . . . For the individual, a difficult authenticity must be demanded; for the systems response, we must first accept the complexity of the world we have created, and our fairly pervasive ignorance of it, and learn to construct systems which remain stable even as contingent meanings and belief systems shift beneath us.

The June column, as promised, develops these ideas a little more.

The previous column noted the increased complexity, multiculturalism, and contingency of the anthropogenic Earth, and the insufficiency of common coping mechanisms, especially ideologies and fundamentalisms of various kinds, in such an environment. More strongly, although over-simplistic and obsolete belief systems are a comfort given the threats and potential catastrophes that we are constantly browbeaten with in our 24/7 media environment, they are not just inadequate but unethical. But this realization begs the obvious question: What possible personal stance can ethically, rationally and responsibly be adopted under such circumstances?

Well, it is certainly not what we see in Seattle. [via Knowledge Problem]

Cultural Racism:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.

My emphasis. How did that bit get in there? It's a pretty good example of dysfunctional ideological fundamentalism that not only cripples some members of society intellectually, it is also ethically bankrupt. When Allenby asks: "What possible personal stance can ethically, rationally and responsibly be adopted under such circumstances?" he strikes to the heart of an important issue. Seattle may be the looney fringe but that looniness is widespread if not as concentrated as in Seattle. It is not inappropriate to think deeply about these things. Allenby gives it a go:

. . . consider Sartre's challenge to responsibility, developed as he faced the stresses of conflict and imprisonment during World War II. It can be neatly captured in two famous phrases: "man is condemned to be free," and "no excuses." The first expresses a basic existentialist position that to be conscious is to be free, and that, even if we don't recognize or accept our freedom, we are nonetheless responsible for it, and our choices. We all live in a world of patterns and contingent constraints that we by and large don't challenge, but for Sartre it is a category mistake as well as an ethical lapse to conclude that such habitual patterns in some way undercut our responsibility. And from the latter observation arises Sartre's dictum: no excuses. The enemy controls your country, and you as an individual have no power? No excuse. You are a coward, and thus not able to respond by joining the underground? No excuse. Similarly today: the world is too complex and I don’t understand it? No excuse. Nothing I think or do will affect these large, coupled systems? No excuse.

Obviously, what we might call the ethical demand for authenticity does not require stupidity. That one indeed lives in a world where the behavior of systems beyond oneself limits the effectiveness of one’s actions is apparent. But we all know people who consistently challenge the dogma and belief structures that lie around them in an on-going effort to validate their choices, or re-evaluate them if conditions change - and we all know people who simply accept what others say, without expending the energy or running the risks, physical and existential, of challenging existing patterns of belief and behavior.

This is the "difficult authenticity" spoken of last month, something that seems in exceedingly short supply in fundamentalist Seattle, but was available in abundance at the recent Skeptics Society Conference "The Environmental Wars". A series of summarizing posts by Jonathan Adler are available at The Commons. You'll find a variety of conclusions drawn from large dollops of evidence by a number of authentic voices that, as Allenby suggests, challenge dogma and reason from evidence. They even change their minds on occasion as the process unfolds, fully accepting the consequences of the existential risks assumed.

As an authentic contrarian I obviously can find fault with any and all of them, and have done so for many including Allenby. But I can also learn from them and find that their authenticity makes them worth paying attention to even when they seem to be off track. They are at least thinking about things rather than simply repeating mantras, and if nothing else can serve as a cautionary example. Their diversity makes them more productive as well as more interesting.

Update:

Dave Roberts, ethically challenged enviro-poser

Advocating that adaptation play a larger role in U.S. policy, in the current political context, does not increase the odds of sensible, balanced climate policy. It simply, if inadvertently, helps the corporatist right cloud the debate and avoid the difficult steps required to cut GHG emissions.

And whatever else we do, that task is paramount.

In an ideal, abstract policy debate, sure, I'd say we should boost our attention to adaptation. But in the current political situation, I don't want to provide any ammunition for the moral cretins who are squirming frantically to avoid policies that might impact their corporate donors. Until they're gone from the scene -- until we have an administration serious about addressing this problem -- I'm going to focus on cutting emissions.

Zing

Climate change is indeed a moral issue. But hey, why advocate policies that can directly help suffering people around the world when you can instead stick to your ideological opponents?

What a perfect example of dysfunctional ideological fundamentalism. It is intellectually, ethically and aesthetically bankrupt to oppose aid to those whose suffer in the present because it might in some way aid your ideological opponents.