Thought For The Day

[kerravonsen]

The rise of governments filled with climate-change deniers has led people to complain that governments (and politicians) "shouldn't have ideology-led policies". Which, while I can see where they're coming from, has always niggled at me as not-quite-right. Because every single political party under the sun has an ideology, that's what makes them a political party, not just a bunch of random power-hungry douchebags. (Though many of them are still random power-hungry douchebags.)

One may disagree with a particular ideology, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have one -- because, as I said, everyone has one, so it isn't the fact of having an ideology that leads to nutty decision-making or everyone would be doing it.

So where does the problem lie? Ideology influences policy: that is good, that is its purpose. Ideology, however has no business influencing your science, your engineering, or your maths. That is like putting your cart before your horse and then shooting your horse for being defective because it couldn't push the cart. Science, maths and engineering will no more bow to your ideology than the mountains will bow to a butterfly. To believe otherwise is magical thinking, like a cargo-cult.

Ideology-led mistakes can happen to both the Left-wing and the Right-wing. Yes, the left-wing can ignore science too; or be ignorant of the unintended consequences of their actions. I mean, it's all very well to say "conservation is good", but does that mean one shouldn't do preventative burn-offs? Does it mean one shouldn't uproot the stumps of trees that have fallen? (I can't remember the specifics of that one, I just remember vaguely some farmer complaining about Greenies making it illegal for him to uproot tree stumps that needed uprooting, but I can't remember what the reason for uprooting them was, just that it was apparently a good reason, and that the Greenies policy was a knee-jerk reaction that was impractical and insufficiently pragmatic. I have insufficient data to say whether the farmer was biased, or whether the Greenies were ignorant.)

(This thought is brought to you by the Banqiao Dam Disaster which can partially be laid at the feet of the ideology-led policies of Mao Zedong...)

So, what do you think? Any examples of left-wing stupid decisions that are better than the ones I could not properly remember? Any thoughts on the rise in magical thinking and the denial of science? Thoughts as to why that has been happening? Please chip in with your comments!

Comments

[tptigger]

Left wing science deniers: some anti-vaxxers and GMOS are bad for you (they are not, though there is something to the lack of cultivar diversity concern)

[kerravonsen]

(Apologies for being so late to respond.)

I didn't think anti-vaxxers were particularly left-wing?

GMOS?

[tptigger]

Here a lot of anti-vaxxers are the left wing hippie no chemicals types.
GMOs are genetically modified organisms eg engineering plants to be resistant to insects

[kerravonsen]

Here a lot of anti-vaxxers are the left wing hippie no chemicals types.

Ah, of course. And I just remembered, another motivation for anti-vaxxers is "vaccines are a conspiracy by Big Business to make money". I'd forgotten that; I was just remembering the "vaccines cause autism" thing, which didn't seem to be particularly leftist or rightist.

GMOs are genetically modified organisms eg engineering plants to be resistant to insects

Ah, right. Though I know of a couple of reasons I'm aware of to be legitimately concerned about GMOs:

1. Cross-pollination and patents: if a farmer, through no fault of his own, has his crops cross-pollinated by GMOs, and those GMOs are patented they could be sued for "stealing intellectual property". For goodness' sake! (Then again, the patent system in the USA is BROKEN.)
2. Cross-pollination and organic farming: if the farmer is also an organic farmer, their crops lose organic status. Not sure what can be done about that, though.
3. Allergies: if the organism has been gene-spliced with something to which someone is allergic, they have no way of knowing that their previously-benign carrot is now something they can't eat safely. (Which, then, hey, they just eat organic, right? Um.)

Huh, I just realised that all of those reasons are related to the uncontrolled spread of GMOs, not necessarily problems with GMOs themselves.

[tptigger]

I don't know exactly how this works, but there are tests for allergenicity that GMOs have to undergo.

As for the patents, there was a class action suit about farmers being sued for wind pollination which was dismissed for lack of standing because no one had actually been sued for this.

I don't know about the rules for organics, can't comment. :)