Let's face it: many of us have, at some point, thought of an idea with which we thought we could "save the world"...and then had reality set in shortly afterward. We can't "save the world" all by ourselves--it's a classic 'but I'm just one person...what can I do?' issue. We need an army to mobilize, a vast number of humans that think much like us that we can unite under the banner of the greater good.
Let's assume that our world-saving idea is a sound one. (It must be. We came up with it!) What legitimizes me? Who or what deems me fit to be a world saving leader? Certainly not experience, because I've never saved the world before. And attracting a vast army of people to lend strength to my argument can rarely be served by charisma alone; people come in all shapes, sizes and mindsets. What one usually must do, then, is water down one’s resolution to attract a broader swath of people to the cause, a cause that most people can get behind, forcing the dissenters to agree to it by majority rule. Behold: the dumbing-down effect. Michael Crichton had a gift for dumbing down the nitty gritty details on complicated subjects like climate control, DNA experimentation, time travel, etc. etc. that allowed him to present scientific data in a palatable form for a public that may not have otherwise given a damn about any of these scientific subjects. The followers to our cause legitimize us. They bestow us with the authority over them until such a time as they think we are no longer worthy. And people are hard, hard, HARD to unite behind a common cause unless one is considered a legitimate leader.
One of the reasons many of us come to college in the first place is for a diploma. A piece of paper that deems us fit to serve in a certain capacity without the requisite experience that would normally precede it--even if the job we desire uses none of the lessons we remember from our classes. Consider it instant legitimacy. When one is given the title 'scientist', one is granted authority over many scientific subjects by the public at large without them having to meet the person and decide for themselves whether or not to believe them. It is no surprise, then, that the public entrusts 'scientists' to fix the issue of global warming (and to convince us that global warming is occurring in the first place!) With this in mind, I'd like to contribute the following link:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/the-copenhagen-accord.html
In it, you can observe the persuasive arguments of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a coalition of scientists who are attempting to save the world through the ever-popular subject of climate control. In it, they present facts that support the notion that the globe is warming overall, and that we may be able to do something about it, provided we make a worldwide effort now. The problem is, worldwide efforts are hampered because the world is made up of nations that each have their own power structure. Even a body like the UN does not rule all these nations!
Though UCSUSA has many different portions of their website, I chose the section that discusses the Copenhagen Accord because it shows just how difficult it is to get nations to agree to substantial reductions in emissions outputs (much like the Kyoto Protocol). Like the Kyoto Protocol before it, though, the thing lacks teeth--it isn't enforceable, because there is no legitimate world leader that all nations bestow with the authority to enforce and regulate this Accord. Like the many emissions-capping efforts before it, it will likely fall by the wayside for this same reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment