Entry 2159, on 2021-10-26 at 20:25:29 (Rating 4, Politics)
Remember back in the day, when you were at university (or whatever else you did in your late teens and early twenties) and were so idealistic, and in touch with the important social issues of the time? Remember how older people looked at you with amusement, or disgust, or incomprehension and said something like "the young people nowadays; they have no clues about the real world", but you just thought they were old and out of touch?
But now you're the older person making derogatory comments about the younger generation, aren't you? Well, maybe you're not, because I'm making a lot of assumptions here. But even if you aren't in that category, I think it would be safe to assume I am.
I saw an interesting quote relating to this phenomenon recently. It said: "If you can't look back at your younger self and realise you were an idiot, then you are probably still an idiot".
I look back and realise I was an idiot. Well, maybe not literally an idiot, because that means a person of low intelligence - and I, and many younger idealistic people, aren't stupid - but I was naive, easily lead astray by ideologues, and lacking in experience and therefore unaware of the nuances and more complex aspects of many political and social issues.
There are two primary areas today where younger people (and many older people, who haven't grown up yet) get things wrong. The first is social politics, especially alleged racism and colonialism, and the supposed evils of capitalism; and the second is environmentalism, and the rejection of science and technology, especially in relation to climate change, nuclear power, and genetic modification.
Note that I am not saying that there is no case against these things at all. What I am saying is that the standard narrative accepted by most younger people (and other, older naive people, but I will leave this out in future) is simplistic, and mostly wrong.
I have covered all of these issues in various blog posts but I thought I might concentrate on climate change this time. It is a major issue which has had a lot of backing from the young idiots over the years, and although it is a bit behind COVID today as a source of mindless hysteria, once COVID is gone no doubt climate change will come back to the forefront.
So let's have a look at my opinion versus that of the young people on various aspects of this subject...
First, is climate change real? Well yes, it is. The evidence showing that the climate is changing has always been strong, and although the evidence that it is human-caused is a bit more doubtful, I think it is reasonable to say that is also a fact. Note that the word "fact" in this context refers to a conclusion which is practically certain using the current best evidence, but might change in future; so I'm using it in a slightly less pure form than others might.
Second, is climate change a problem? Again, yes, at least to some extent. Some parts of the world will not be as suitable for human habitation as the climate changes, but others will get better. Overall, I think the change will be negative, especially because of severe weather events and sea level rise, so it is a problem to that extent. But even then, we can adapt. For example, although severe weather is becoming more extreme, the number of deaths from these events is going down significantly, just because we are better at predicting and responding to them. In the US, a person is 300 times more likely to die from drug use than from a natural disaster.
Third, is climate change an existential crisis? No, it isn't. There is no chance that the planet will be unliveable or that humans will become extinct as a direct consequence of climate change. There might be wars caused by competition for resources, or by populations needing to move to less badly affected areas of the world, but these sorts of things happen anyway, and will not cause complete human extinction or "the end of the world".
Fourth, will there be mass extinctions of animals and plants because of climate change? Again, no. Although the young idiots are claiming massive global extinctions now, that is not true. To be classed as a mass extinction about 75 to 90 percent of species must be involved. Currently 6% are critically endangered, and of those most will probably survive as a species. Almost any extinction is bad, but claiming mass extinctions are happening now, or will happen in the near future is just wrong.
Fifth, are solar and wind power, electric cars, and other "green" and natural technologies the solution? I'm afraid not. Green tech will not save us (assuming we even needed saving). What we really need is modern versions of the technologies the people I am criticising dislike so much: nuclear energy, genetic modification, and other technological solutions.
Finally, should we be doing something about climate change, even if its effects are completely misunderstood by the young idiots? Well, sure. For example, electric cars will be much better than internal combustion cars once the initial issues are fixed, and the required infrastructure is provided. And burning oil instead of using it to make useful products like plastics, is quite wasteful. While there is plenty more fossil fuel out there, it will run out eventually, so better technologies are undoubtedly useful.
So you can see that climate change is an issue which we should be aware of, and make some effort to minimise, but it is not an existential crisis, or an emergency, or any of the other things the young idiots so hysterically like to refer to it as.
I know exactly how these misunderstandings arise: many people don't look deeply into the real facts and prefer to have a more surface understanding, especially when it fits their own biases. They also absorb the opinions of their peers and teachers (and education is arguably the worst informed and most biased profession we have).
Yet we listen to these young people, the most prominent example being Greta Thunberg. Could there be anyone worse? Not only is she young, ignorant, and opinionated, but she is on the autism spectrum, meaning she sees things in simplistic, black and white terms. This is exactly the type of person whose political opinion should at least be treated with great suspicion, if not completely ignored.
At the same time, many opinions of older people - especially if they also happen to be white men - are ignored as being "pale, stale, and male". But this is exactly the wrong way around. The older people are the ones who have had enough time to realise that the world is complicated. Their opinions should be the most valued.
I know all this, because I used to be a young idiot myself. But eventually I learned to think for myself, instead of just parroting cute catch-phrases. I was an idiot then, but at least I have moved on since.
Comment 1 (6933) by Pat on 2021-10-27 at 13:25:29:
Right on the money Owen, as usual (and your 2 previous posts as well!!). I look around and wonder when I became my father with contempt for the young and the Stupidverse they seem to exist and exult in. I'm still a hothead, but make an effort to discern truth from alarmism, and climate change is pretty normal, and certainly not new. My coal fire keeps me nice and warm in winter; what's endangered is my freedom to have an opinion athwart the Zeitgeist!
Comment 2 (6934) by OJB on 2021-10-27 at 14:07:06:
Yes, the most dangerous people are those who are convinced they are right and don't mind forcing other people to be "right" in the same way as them. This is a very common attitude for young and naive people, as well as those with a tendency to tyranny.
We see this with climate change, COVID, and race relations very prominently right now. I'm not saying that there aren't real problems associated with those issues, just that there is room for debate on the severity of the problems, and the best way to handle them. I think anyone who doesn't agree with the consensus deserves a fair hearing; in fact, they are the most important to listen to.
Comment 3 (6937) by Anonymous on 2021-10-28 at 12:37:31:
So black and white for you isn't it? The reality is that while "the young" may seem hot headed and foolish to you, they could be described using adjectives like passionate and idealistic that are slightly less negative than your old fart perspective would allow. Also, aren't you against identity politics, so why are we talking about "young people" as if they act as one?
Comment 4 (6938) by OJB on 2021-10-28 at 13:17:57:
Well, those are fair points, but I think "passionate" and "idealistic" are neutral terms, or maybe even negative, if we are primarily focussing on accuracy and rationality. You are right though, that suggesting all young people are the same. I probably should have clarified that my rant only applies to the politically active group who are focussed in such an hysterical way on trendy issues.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE