What is the root cause of denialism?

denialism (usually uncountable; plural denialisms)

1. describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly[1].

In recent years the messages of politically conservative groups in the US have become increasingly at odds with scientific findings. The latest example is the recent claim by US Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., that “legitimate rape,” in his words, rarely causes pregnancy. I initially thought this was a brain-addled individual making things up on the fly during a radio interview. However, I’ve since learned that this is the official position of American Right to Life, The American Family Association, and the Human Family Research Center, three anti-abortion groups (Dan Horn, “Science Suffering in the Debate Over Rape,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/26/2012). The groups make this claim because they believe it will make it easier to pass legislation that bans abortion without exceptions for rape and incest, but the scientific evidence does not support their claim that rape is less likely to result in pregnancy. As in other current controversies involving social issues, conservative groups not only ignore scientific evidence when it doesn’t support their views, but make claims that are at odds with the evidence.

Increasing numbers of politically and religiously conservative groups are adopting this anti-science approach. The conservative John Birch society started the anti-Agenda 21 movement opposed to sustainable development and the anti-fluoridation campaign[2]. The Tea Party gave birth to the “Birthers” movement that claims President Obama is not a US citizen because he was born in Kenya, despite the overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Currently the most important scientific claim that deniers dispute is that the Earth is warming due to release of the greenhouse gas CO₂ during burning of fossil fuels, again despite overwhelming evidence supporting this claim.

How did this all start? I believe that conservatives embarked on the slippery slope of denialism beginning with the Creationist movement that arose in response to the scientific theory of evolution. Motivated by their religious beliefs, which are rooted in a literal interpretation of the bible, fundamentalist Christians either passively choose to ignore evidence of evolution or actively fight to stop the teaching of evolution in public schools. It seems that once people become accustomed to denying evidence, they become increasingly adept at it. No amount of evidence will convince active climate change deniers that climate change is occurring. Based on my personal observations (I would love to see a study that tests this claim), it seems that most climate change deniers are politically conservative, fundamentalist Christians who also deny the reality of evolution. Such individuals will crow about scientific findings that support their views, but will ignore or attack findings that are at odds with their views rather than change their views. This dogmatic approach is rooted in political ideology. Recent studies suggest that the only way to persuade climate change deniers to adopt climate change mitigation measures such as cap and trade is to convince them that even if climate change claims are false, mitigation measures will have a positive effect on social welfare such as greater technological and economic development[3]. While this may treat the symptoms of denialism, it doesn’t address the causes. What can cure the disease of denialism? Effective teaching of evidence-based science in public schools is a start, but society needs to find new ways to stem the spread of denialism, which is making our country less competitive and harming future generations.

---

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denialism

[2] The John Birch Society also opposed the civil rights movement and promotes claims that the UN is plotting to take over the world.

[3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html

Globalization and culture

Much of the backlash against globalization stems from a fear that it will lead to a homogenization of culture. This process has operated throughout history, but electronic media and global transportation have accelerated the process because they have removed barriers to the exchange of information. Without barriers, random processes cause the entropy of the global social system to increase, eventually leading to homogenization. It's like the classic experiment that explains entropy and diffusion. Divide a box into two chambers and fill each with a different gas. When you remove the divider, Gas A molecules begin to diffuse into the Gas B chamber, and vice-versa. The entropy, or disorder, of the system increases as the two chambers change composition from pure gas to increasingly similar mixtures of A and B molecules. When the process is complete, the two chambers have the same compositions. Both entropy and stability are at their maximum values.

Likewise, geographic and communication barriers have historically divided world cultures. A diverse array of cultures developed in isolation, which led to decreased stability and increased conflicts. The modern removal of communication barriers inevitably reversed the process of cultural divergence by increasing the efficiency of information exchange and removing cultural obstructions. Theoretically, the subsequent cultural 'blending' will ultimately (over long periods of time) lead to cultural homogenization and societal stability, but in the short term the process can be disruptive and painful. However, the force driving this process is relentless, so stopping the process would be difficult or impossible, and undesirable since it leads to an increase in stability. As long as humanity has affordable global travel and digital communication, fighting against cultural homogenization on a global scale would be futile. The only way to slow or prevent it is to slow or stop the exchange of information, which is neither desirable nor acceptable.

Just as a homogeneous mixture of two gases is more stable than the segregated pure gases, cultural homogeneity should encourage stability. Removal of cultural differences and barriers increases understanding, which decreases fear and hatred, which increases stability. However, we also previously argued that decreased diversity leads to decreased resilience. A system is most resilient when diversity is at a maximum. For example, ecosystems with high biodiversity are more resilient than those with low biodiversity. In a farm or garden, a polyculture is more resilient than a monoculture. Reasoning by analogy, high cultural diversity corresponds to greater resilience. Cultural diversity makes it more likely that society will find solutions in the face of global threats such as global warming. In the past, some cultures were better prepared to deal with adversity, while other less adept civilizations collapsed. For example, in contrast to the Easter Islanders who practiced unsustainable logging practices until no trees remained, Japanese leaders successfully dealt with timber shortages in the mid-17th century. They invoked Confucian principles of limiting consumption and accumulating reserve supplies to develop sustainable forest management (Diamond 2005). In our global society, one culture may provide the seed of knowledge or understanding that will lead to the preservation of global civilization. What if that culture were wiped out during cultural homogenization? Global homogenization of culture would decrease the resilience of humanity.

Therefore, sustainability requires stability and diversity. We must maximize the two at different spatial scales. A community containing people with similar cultures and beliefs can be stable; a country containing diverse communities can be resilient if those communities respect each other’s differences. To promote sustainability, society should adopt policies that reduce intracommunity diversity and increase intercommunity diversity. For example, many cities in the northeast like Buffalo, where I grew up, have multiple ethnic neighborhoods (Polish, Italian, and Irish in Buffalo), and these neighborhoods have coexisted peacefully for more than one hundred years.