The end of the world?

Maybe not from a Mayan perspective but, nevertheless, who knows!

For some time now I have subscribed to the online magazine Big Think.  Daniel Honan, Managing Editor, has contrived to bring together a group of very interesting authors from a wide range of disciplines, presenting a weekly collection of thought-provoking articles.  Despite the volume of emails that seems to assault my in-box each day, it’s very rare for me not to browse the weekly digest from Big Think.

Thus it was that early on the 13th (last Thursday) I read a wonderful item written by Steven V. Mazie, Associate Professor of Political Studies at Bard High School Early College-Manhattan.

A quick telephone call to Dan Honan produced an immediate ‘yes’ to my request for permission to republish the Steven Mazie piece here on Learning from Dogs so settle back and enjoy.

oooOOOooo

Googling the Apocalypse: the Web as Epistemological Vortex

Steven Mazie on December 11, 2012, 2:12 PM

Let’s say you’re just now tuning in to reports that the world will end on December 21 when the Mayan calendar resets to zero. Maybe you’re one of the 35 million Americans who fear it will really happen. Maybe the prospect of solar storms, rogue planets and devastating floods is a welcome distraction from more pedestrian anxieties of everyday life. Or maybe you’re just curious how such a ridiculous idea could persuade “panicked” Russians to buy up all the “matches, kerosene, sugar and candles” in town or spur a Chinese man to spend his life savings building an ark to keep him afloat after the catastrophe.

Where do you turn to learn more? To the epistemic umbrella of the 21st century, of course, and here is what Google will show you.

SM1

Do you consult the first hit, billed as the “official website for 122112 information”? Do you settle for the detailed account in the Wikipedia entry, listed second? Or do you flick down to the third, an earnest attempt by NASA to explain “Why the World Won’t End”?

If you go with the first site, you will find a bizarre, colorful bazaar of information, perspectives and advice on the approaching doomsday. There is enough to keep you occupied here for a while: a list of celebrities who believe the hype (finding Mel Gibson on the list isn’t much of a surprise, but Janeane Garofolo? really?), an article listing “37 Things You Should Start Hoarding Now” and one remarkable video summarizing the various ways the world might end and calling on world leaders to tell the “TRUTH” about the devastation awaiting us:

The video is a study in epistemic manipulation. Narrated by a man with a severe British accent, the presentation claims — three times — “we just don’t know what to believe anymore” about “the most anticipated date of our time.” Implying that the media, corporate advertisers, the “government-sponsored scientists” at NASA and “even highly respected major religious organizations” are all either mistaken or willfully fooling us, the video appeals to our “gut instincts that something is wrong — something just doesn’t feel right.” It’s a miracle Stephen Colbert hasn’t picked this up yet. “In the eyes of many,” the video announces with no substantiation, “the prophecies of doom have been written.”

The sad hilarity of NASA’s attempt to calm everyone down takes the form of a staid FAQ. There are no bells and whistles, videos, garish colors or flashing links. Just sober, somewhat condescending, straightforward claims: “Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.”

The problem is that credible science often fails to convince the masses. It cannot budge the majority of Americans who continue to deny the reality of evolution. It cannot convince more than 41 percent of Americans that the activities of human beings play a role in global warming. It’s no wonder, then, that so many people worldwide are keeping doomsday supply companies in business, buying up freeze-dried food rations and personal bunkers rather than Christmas presents, or that sites like December212012.com are profiting from these advertisers.

It’s dispiriting to witness the mass delusion of a tenth of humanity. You have to feel sorry for the Chinese ark-builder who will be left penniless on December 22, and you have to empathize with the people who are contemplating killing their pets or committing suicide to avoid the doomsday devastation.

But this unsettling phenomenon is a symptom of a universal human quandary: how to know whom to trust about things we can’t see or don’t understand. In a section on the rationality of belief in his delicious book Cunning (2006), political and legal theorist Don Herzog offers this:

What you believe depends on who you believe. And who you believe depends on what you believe. Your beliefs, your knowledge, your experience, your assignments of what I’ll call epistemic authority, that is, who or what sources are trustworthy on what issues: all are caught up in each other…Whether it’s rational for you to believe something depends on how it fits in with what you already believe, not least about the credibility of those reporting it.

The best argument against the doomsday believers may come on December 22, when, with any luck, most of us will still be around. But as my fellow blogger David Ropeik explained recently, and as Herzog’s analysis indicates, the next epistemological doomsday is just around the corner.

Follow Steven Mazie on Twitter: @stevenmazie

oooOOOooo

My judgment is that I should leave this post as it is.  As a slightly tongue-in-cheek review of this much heralded prediction.

But I can’t.

I’m going to follow Steve’s article with this (thanks Christine):

More footage from Chasing Ice,  an astonishing clip of the largest iceberg calving ever recorded. Arctic sea ice levels this summer hit a record low; according to the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Centre in September, more than 600,000 square kilometres more ice had melted in 2012 than was ever recorded by satellites before. We are indeed melting our children’s future, and apparently many of us are too busy to hold our governments to account for their lack of action.

If we don’t change our ways on this beautiful planet pretty damn soon, then my guess is that we are headed for a massive depopulation and a return to a much more primitive lifestyle, a future that will be brutally obvious by 2020.

What is relevant, to a degree unprecedented in the history of humanity, is how the peoples of this planet respond NOW!

Historic times indeed.

co2Nov12

11 thoughts on “The end of the world?

  1. Have no fear even if the world really ends on this Friday. if we die, we will die together as one world. Spend as much money as you can and incur as much debts as you can, make as much promises as you can, because if the world really ends, no one will chase after you for debts and fault you for breaking any promises! LOL!

    Like

  2. As I said to you in a previous email, Paul: “There are so many pieces about this stupid Mayan prophecy on the Internet, it is quite astonishing… The National Geographic channel are also having an entire “Doomsday” week of programmes… You would almost think people had nothing better to worry about – or is it that they need something to take their mind of all the things they should be worrying about…? “… Therefore, Maizie almost stumbles on the truth when he says: “Maybe the prospect of solar storms, rogue planets and devastating floods is a welcome distraction from more pedestrian anxieties of everyday life. “… Except that climate change is not a pedestrian anxiety; it is a epoch-defining existential crisis; and an awful lot of people are still in denial about it.

    Like

  3. Why in denial of climate change? Because of perceived interest to be so. Because it’s comfortable to be manipulated. It’s not because people can’t act. They don’t WANT to act. Instead they make an evil computation: if piling up enough distractions is comfortable.

    Like

      1. Paul: I wrote 6,000 words AGAINST lethal violence. The fact you edit any reference to my writing AGAINST violence shows, it seems to me, which side you are on. I am happy to inform you that Obama followed my recommendations in the detail. Different people have different actions on the world.

        Like

      2. My editing out of your reference to guns does not reveal anything to do with sides. You know very little about me and should not presume otherwise. If you are unhappy with that, you are free to comment elsewhere.

        Like

      3. Before action, there is got to be reflection, and this means information.

        To present what I wrote and you censored as “reference to guns” is misleading to your readers. It was exactly the opposite. I did not refer to instruments of death inasmuch as explained, and condemned, where the obsession with them came from. It was mostly a link back to what I said.

        Old Judaism had it that never adressing a problem was to make it divine.

        The fact remains that you censored someone who talked against lethal violence. I know this about you, and that tells me much.

        It’s all the more bizarre since those who are for those instruments of death are the same ones who are for doing violence against the climate. The relationship is direct, I gave the names, you censored that. That is not what I presumed, but what I observed. You may not know enough to realize that the names I gave are those of well known “climate change” deniers. “Cerberus” is, nowadays, really a group of (very wealthy) individuals. Are you going to censor that? Again?

        Learning from dogs is good, learning from people even better! ;-)!

        Anyway, I got what I wanted in the last ten days. I took very significant action (FOR the climate) by getting rid of Rice, and now other things are moving.

        You wanted action, you got some!

        Ideas can move mountains, censorship never did. Especially as I said absolutely nothing offensive.

        Like

  4. Narrated by a man with a severe British accent

    Nah, I reckon that voice is computer generated from snippets of someone’s voice.

    My brother’s worried about me. I think he’s convinced that because I’m constantly wibbling on about climate change, that somehow means that I automatically buy into the Mayan apocalypse stuff (which I most certainly do not). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing (but not enough is even more dangerous…).

    Catch you on the flipside 😉

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.