Our Assumptions Need Serious Examination
By Peter
Schwartzman
There are many
assumptions operating in our culture that need to be reexamined. They are
powerful and they often lead us to have opinions and make/support decisions
that do us a great deal of harm. In this situation, it is very important that
we challenge these general beliefs in hopes that we can come to a heightened
awareness of the basis of our actions, both individually and collectively.
LetÕs consider just three of these assumptions here.
One
of the biggest assumptions is the dominance of linearity in our thinking. We
often assume that
subjects/objects
in the world interact primarily in a linear fashion. For instance, many assume
that if a little bit of a chemical is safe (i.e., shows no apparent effects)
then a little bit more is probably safe as well. It assumed that the effects of
a chemical will grow incrementally with the dose of exposure—e.g., twice
the exposure will have twice the damage.
Another
example of how linear thinking works in our society pertains to changes being
made to the environment. Some would say that since we are annually adding only
an extra few parts per million of carbon dioxide to an atmosphere that has ~400
parts per million (of this greenhouse gas) to begin with, resulting changes will
be inconsequential for quite some time. That is, we wonÕt see catastrophic
changes soon. Rather, the Earth will get warm very slowly in response to these
new gasses.
A
last way in which linear thinking rears it head is in terms of looking for
one-to-one relationships between cause and effects. It assumes that there is one ultimate reason for all outcomes.
For example, if a destructive hurricane hits a coastline, it either occurred
because of Òglobal warmingÓ or some other cause. And if it didnÕt occur because
of Òglobal warming,Ó then some see this as support for increased skepticism
concerning global warmingÕs existence.
All
three forms of linearity have a place in our society. There are likely a
multitude of reasons (sorry, no linear reasoning here) for this—among
them, we believe what the media tells us (and they are often looking for simple
solutions to complex problems) as well as our educational exposures which also
emphasize linear, single-factor relationships (for sake of simplicity as well).
The problem with linear thinking occurs when we assume that most interactions
are of this form. It turns out that science is learning more and more than
linear models are not representative of the bulk of interactions among species
nor the governing mechanisms that control the climate or other complex
processes found on Earth. Hence, there appear to be thresholds or tipping
points that are often not predictable when it comes to understanding important
questions, such as, ÒHow many trees can be cut in a forest before it loses its
ability to maintain its ecological integrity?,Ó or, ÒAt what global temperature
will the polar ice sheets melt?Ó Thus, by avoiding the uncertainty inherent in
some non-linear relationships, linear thinking leads us to feel much more comfortable
about future changes on the planet than alternative forms of thinking might.
Additionally, linear thinking fails to consider the multitude of contributing
factors (many unknown or, even, unknowable) that are operating on this planet.
For instance, toxins affect us differently depending on the ÒsoupÓ of other
toxins in our bodies at the time of exposure—some chemicals act
synergistically (cooperatively) and can do much more/different damage when working
in tandem with other ones. In addition, some scholars now recognize how
incredibly important the diversity of soils (the creatures and the chemical components) is to the maintenance of life that we
observe above ground. Thus, understanding this one additional factor, might
lead us to consider our current industrial agricultural model antithetical to
the health and vitality of soil, and life in general. Ultimately, dominating
our thinking with linear modes might give us the allusion of being safe and
secure but it does so by tricking us rather than allowing us to contemplate the
full scope of relevant contributors and outcomes.
Economics
has a huge role to play in our lives. Literally, today, we cannot not live
without engaging in economic transactions with people and corporations. Think
about it, how long could you stay alive on this planet today without buying
something (or using something that has already been bought)? Thus, we routinely
engage with others in economic forms and one of the most regularly referenced principles
underlying these interactions is known as Òsupply and demand.Ó In this model,
the price of an object (say, a car) will fluctuate until it brings equilibrium
between the supply and demand (of said car). The problem with this model is
that it fails to explain why certain commodities arenÕt found in the
marketplace, particularly commodities that seemingly have a role to play in our
healthy future.
For
example, electric cars and efficient public transportation options would seem
to be highly desirable products today (especially with gas at $4 a gallon) but
yet they are largely unavailable to most people; the same could be said for
large-scale access to renewable energy. Yet, many people think, based on a
simple understanding of Òsupply and demand,Ó that as soon as more people come
to desire a particular product, manufacturers will do their darnedest to supply
consumers with it. Realistically, however, the powers that be (here the auto
manufacturers and the oil multinationals that benefit from personal vehicles
that are inefficient) have a great interest in keeping certain products off the
market. As was vividly exhibited by electric cars made for California drivers
earlier this decade, the demand for them was large but the company supplying
them decided to remove them from the roads (as well as lobby to make sure that
zero-emission vehicles were removed from state mandates). (The movie, Who Killed the Electric Car?, describes
the entire sequence of events that led to this horrendous outcome). One can buy
electric cars from small manufacturers but the big guys have all but decided
that these alternatives must be eliminated as an option (for most passengers). (Stories
of this type should not surprise us here in Galesburg. Roughly eighty years
ago, several large corporations ÒworkedÓ together to ensure that GalesburgÕs
electric street cars were eliminated.) Patents on batteries (which can and have
been monopolized historically) make it more difficult for small producers to
provide the most technologically advanced products as well.
Additionally,
Òsupply and demandÓ often assumes that demand is coming from well-informed
consumers. This perspective ignores the incredible power of influence of the
advertising industry. When was the last time that you saw a fuel-efficient
automobile promoted as sexy, powerful, and edgy? Ultimately the consumer (and
the environment) suffers when these products are kept out of the market. Where
did supply and demand principles go? DonÕt always assume they are operating.
Find out what other factors are acting. There are many other useful products
that are banned in the United States for frivolous reasons, such as, hemp and
stevia. Check these out as well. The truth about them may prompt you to
reconsider what the current economic and political rules and structures are really
operating in 2008.
Lastly,
what assumptions do we make around the concept of intelligence? I contend that
while our society puts great value on intelligence, its narrow range of recognized
forms is not in keeping with a healthy society. High levels of intelligence are
associated with high scores on standardized tests, advanced academic degrees,
and the ability to recall lots of factual information. As someone who has
excelled at these standards (at least the first two) and, by profession, who is
surrounded by others who do, IÕd like to see a serious reworking of the concept
of intelligence.
There
are lots of skills that come in handy as a human. Being able to solve complex
math equations and read esoteric literature may be useful for some of us.
Others find great utility in the areas of construction, art, music, cooking,
teaching, etc. All of these abilities give us ways to solve problems and means
to derive satisfaction and enjoyment. As such, they must require a great deal
of intelligence as well. Yet the dominant ÒintelligenceÓ tests of today do not
assess a personÕs ability in these areas. More importantly, the way
intelligence is promoted today, it isnÕt whether what one knows is being used
for good, honorable aims, but rather whether one has assimilated a certain list
of recommended skills (here, a mastery of complex math forms and high-falutin
language is esteemed). Unfortunately, in a society that gives so much privilege
and power to its ÒintelligentÓ members, it is very destructive to define intelligence
so narrowly.
Not
only would we benefit from expanding the skill sets that are associated with
intelligence, we would greatly benefit if we acknowledged that knowledge and
know-how in subject areas that are key to our individual and collective survival
(such as, ecological and historical ones) should be privileged in our society,
especially given current environmental trends and challenges. Is it not more
important to know which plants are edible than what albums have gone platinum
or which soils are fertile than what batting average The Babe had in 1929? Yet,
which of these questions will most likely be asked in our cultural games that stock
our cupboards? Based on these games and many standardized tests, which realms
of knowledge are being privileged? At what cost?
There
are members of our society that have a deep sense of connection to the Earth
and its cycles. These people, who, in my experience, disproportionately come
from indigenous communities, are the true intellectuals. It is time that we started
listening and learning from them rather than the ÒintellectualsÓ that stream
through our cable wires or satellite beams. Language is a dynamic entity in culture;
perhaps we can begin transforming the term ÒintelligenceÓ so that it is more
useful to our survival than to our egos.
So
there you have it—three assumptions that deserve review. Where do you
stand on these? What other assumptions are you eager to deconstruct? What are
you waiting for?
Peter Schwartzman (email: wordnerdauthor@gmail.com)
is associate professor and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox
College. Father to two amazing girls, Peter hopes that their lives will be
lived on a less-toxic, more just, more loving planet. A nationally-ranked
Scrabble¨ junkie, he is also the founder and maintainer of websites dedicated
to peace and environmental well-being (www.onehuman.org
& www.blackthornhill.org) as well as cofounder of The Center (thecenteringalesburg.org).
061208