Why do you believe what you do about environmental issues? I am sure you believe it to be purely based on a sober reflection on the facts, plus an injection of your values, which you no doubt also think are objective.
The truth is that it takes an impossible amount of time and effort to apply our minds to every issue that comes our way, so we usually, and quite rationally, outsource our thinking. This article is about the major factors influencing this outsourcing. I will also try to isolate the views of highly intelligent minds that did apply themselves.
I apply a statistical technique called multiple regression to dozens of environmental issues and summarise the results in terms of the independent effects of a few factors.
The most obvious thing we outsource our thinking to is our ideological tribe. It shows in that being scientifically informed does not lead to a greater consensus of opinion but to more polarisation.
So how do the two main tribes think differently about environmental issues?
Conservatives think there are other human problems that are more important – standard of living being the most obvious. They are less inclined to believe environmental issues are much of a danger to the environment itself, to the economy or to their family. Consequently, they believe those issues do not justify government interference, greater expense or personal sacrifice.
Liberals tend to take the opposite view.
As men and women, we tend to experience the world a little differently, and to some extent outsource our thinking to others of our sex. Women are much more inclined to perceive danger to the environment from a wide variety of sources and to believe we ought to be worried about them. Men are relatively less worried.
Older people grew up when different things were important and are in the midst of a different life stage with different responsibilities from younger people. This has to colour what they see as priorities. The youth are less likely to make a personal effort to do their bit. Nonetheless, they do think progress, economic growth and nuclear power are a danger to the environment, that we should worry more about, spend more on it and rely on international pressure to bring countries, particularly wealthy ones, into line. They have more faith in fines and taxes than education as a means to change behaviour.
Personal responsibility
My take is that older people have learned that what the young now take for granted did not grow on trees, and to not underestimate personal responsibility.
The only difference the mere passage of time made is that people are now more inclined to think industry should shoulder more of the costs of the collateral damage it causes.
High earners are more aware of their personal environmental impact and more active in environmental causes. They are also less likely to see progress and nuclear power as environmental threats. This is probably because they have their basic needs met and can now afford to pay more attention to other things that contribute to their quality of life.
When we outsource our opinions to people like us we are not always aware of the circumstances that largely produce the opinions of, say, the average high earner or older person.
The well-educated are more familiar with the details of progress and technology than the less educated and therefore less likely to attribute harm to economic growth, nuclear power, genetic modification, climate change or many other things humans do. Nonetheless, they are more concerned and active with respect to the environment and believe people need nudging and guidance by legislation in order to do likewise.
We arrive at what intelligent opinion, shorn of the connection with other factors, can tell us.
It is intelligent to consider the environment something to worry about and to consider doing and spending more to protect it. It is intelligent to be aware of one’s own environmental impact and to be optimistic about effective personal action. It is smart to believe that government does more for the environment, that business does not do its fair share and that legislation is necessary to make them do it. Nevertheless, it is also intelligent to reject most green hysterias.
Instructive
There are some issues where being smarter is of no help. It is instructive to look at these.
I can easily sum them up by saying that intelligence is irrelevant to what you choose to think is important in life, such as, for example, the environment or your material quality of life, or whether you actually do or spend something for environmental causes.
How smart someone is sheds no light on whether it is any business of government, or international organisations, to make us get involved in environmental action or do so themselves.
Finally, the opinion of intelligent versus unintelligent people tells us nothing about whether climate change is an environmental threat.
In sum, be aware that when you outsource your opinions, the various tribes you belong to – be they ideological, gender, age or class – are likely to give you an unhealthy dose of bias. Try to put their views into perspective.
It is intelligent to be aware of and apply yourself to problems, including environmental issues. However, intelligent opinion tells us nothing about how important problems are relative to one another. Everyone really does have different priorities and should be free to focus on them rather than your priorities.
If you still believe that you must bully people into sharing your vision, then smart opinion is that government is the most effective way to do it.
[Image: Javier Miranda on Unsplash]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend