Wow Micheal Crichton. Wow. Eco-terrorists? Really? This guy wins my heart every time because he can take any typical science topic and, without any hesitation whatsoever, turn it into the most apocalyptic thriller yet. He doesn’t care, he’ll do whatever it takes. Not interesting enough? Throw in a made up island. Not suspenseful enough? Add some cannibal tribes to the made up island. Need a sweet death? Octopus Venom. Oh wait, this is about global warming—that’s okay, keep the octopus, it’s cool.
The reason why Mr. Crichton can do whatever he wants is completely justified: in the back of the book he says that we can’t predict the future and even trying to is euphemistic. A guess is a guess. Therefore whenever we’re predicting the future, according to Crichton, the world may just end ripped up under lighting storms and tornados, crawling with dinosaurs, or taken over by cowboy-themed amusement park robots. It’s all fair game according to Crichton. People can hate him all they want but really, I think everyone’s just a wee bit jealous of Michael’s mediocre success as a cheese-tastic best-selling author. Sorry guys!
There’s an interesting exchange between Balder and Evans where each try and legitimize global warming. At one point Balder says, “When you have a strongly held belief, don’t you think it’s important to express that belief accurately?” pg. 89. Evans says not really because when it comes to global warming everyone knows what you’re talking about. It’s like when someone is stuck in a paradigm and they can’t see another view—Balder is trying to get Evans to accurately express why his belief in global warming is accurate/true (maybe trying to get Evans to break out of his paradigm), but Evans is perfectly content living in this world of “I don’t have to, people know what I mean.” I definitely felt that whole goldfish in a bowl feeling.
This maybe a little more depth than Michael was going for but it’s pretty accurate. I mean, we’ve all fallen in those traps. I forget what’s real science and what’s the accepted belief. If you’ve ever watched a Michael Moore movie and believed every word only to later realize that it’s Michael Moore, then you know what I’m talking about. So far, I feel like the Evans character is definitely a representation of the common somewhat-informed person (the reader) that believes nearly everything they hear on global warming with little or no evidence. When you think about it, that’s really who Crichton is writing to. Not to scientists, or politicians, or environmentalists. He’s writing to the people who don’t know anything about real science but love sci-fi. He knows his audience. This man is great. And that’s why the Pulitzer Prize should go out to Michael Crichton: for distorting years of research, ignoring some facts and still getting nearly all of America to not only become skeptical towards global warming (to a level of suspicious conspiracy!), but to also fall in love with him. What a guy.
Love the irony Alex! I had a good laugh reading that first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing: though we may not agree with his synopsis in the book (those evil NERF bastards and their kooky weapons! THE GLOBAL WARMING CAKE IS A LIE!) I'm at least happy to see the topic debated because many of us have had only one viewpoint shoved down our throats from the beginning: the globe is warming and it's our own pollutin', high-falootin' fault!
If he can present a solid topic to debate by dumbing the subject down to lay levels so he can be popular, I say let him do it! As you said, he knows his audience, and by reaching a wide audience through the least common denominator, he exposes a wide base to the topic of global conservation politics.
I just hope that those who read it don't take it as the gospel truth. Just like with Michael Moore, we should know an agenda when we see one.
Finally, some opposing views! Totally Nate, but i do think that if anyone is against man-made global warming effects they have to be careful how they use the book as a source (if they are bold enough to use it at all). Though the book does open eyes to the other side, you can very quickly get ripped apart in argument if this is the foundation to your opinion. But props to Crichton for getting enough people to get together in their mom's basements, down some mountain dews, and hate on Global Warming. Everyone loves a good bash.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see Nate in here with a strong position, too. WHATEVER position we hold (and I think Dr. C's science is a bit messed up--and he should know better), science is ALWAYS embedded in politics. In M. Latour's view, science is politics--and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteThe imperative here is to be skeptical.