How is it that emotionally derived
opinions are sufficient even in the face of facts and logic that
would suggest otherwise?
We see issues creating divisiveness
where an emotional wave will roll over the bedrock of truth in
arriving to a perceived majority consensus. These issues of climate
change, asylum seeker policy, gay marriage, mining, the economy and
now a fractured multiculturalism are at the forefront of public and
political debate during this dark chapter.
Never mind that more than 90% and up to
97% of reputable climate scientists agree that the planet is warming
due to human activity. origin of graphic from skeptical science
 |
| with 2 being unsure and 1 saying no. |
One half of the people would rather
listen to Tony Abbott or Alan Jones, neither who have any expertise
in this field and dispute the findings as if scientists had some
secret global agenda.
Tony also questioned the quality of our
economists when they said a carbon tax or emission trading scheme was
a responsible and efficient way for this nation to respond and move
forward towards a greener economy.
Is he an economist as well as a climate
scientist? No, so why do people listen to him? Not for facts and
logic that's for sure so it must be that he appeals to the base
emotions of many. And those many believe they know better, why?
 |
| http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5ia5qZrU21qify48o1_500.jpg |
Just because we don't want a carbon tax (not that the public pays it - we are compensated for the rise in cost of living that the top polluters pass down to us from the impact of a carbon tax on them).
I'm more concerned with the other cost they are passing down, the commodity of fear. With no rational foot to stand on they use their clout to sow seeds of doubt and pull at the heartstrings of fear. It's Un-Australian. They're taking our jobs. We can't afford it in this GFC (despite not being in recession and one of the richest countries per capita in the world).
Advocates for climate change can and do use fear to drive their cause as well and I hate it when they do that because then we end up downriver from the bridge to change in a quagmire of emotion, slinging mud at eachother.
And what of the asylum seeker debate? Our two major parties seem to have settled for offshore processing and long stays within detention centres as a detterant to refugees seeking asylum in Australia. They claim with emotion (much of it genuine) that this is to prevent the tragedy of refugees drowning at sea. The detterant has been shown to be somewhat effective but only when we treat refugees so abhorrently as to cause such mental anguish that we see numerous suicide attempts in detention and people sewing their mouths shut. And on all indications they say they are going to keep coming.
Tony Abbott (leading the way again) refers to these people as illegal immigrants which is factually incorrect, and he uses it in such a way as to be imflammatory. He also had the gall to refer to them as un-christian for entering through the back door despite Jesus himself being a refugee and the principles of christianity calling on followers to love thy neighbour and care for the poor and downtrodden. They are often referred to as queue jumpers even though it has been widely acknowledged that there is no queue for them to join. How do you apply for asylum when in some war torn countries like Afghanistan it is normal for our embassy to move place from day to day to avoid becoming a target for insurgents. So what are the facts?
There are really only two ways to stop drownings at sea - gain a reputation for treating asylum seekers so abhorrently that no one will want to come, or create a queue that asylum seekers would see as worthwile joining. I'm for the latter option because our identity as a fair, just and compassionate nation is easily worth the extra people that we will have to accomodate. And if you welcome people with open arms then they're more likely to be grateful and want to contribute than to feel seperate and resentfully and barely tolerated.
Our emotions are primitive. We can be tribal with them and just last week we saw a tribal mentality riding on a wave of emotion lash out with ugly repercussions. Does this mean that I'm suggesting that our human emotions are bad and we should dispense with them and all become Spock-like characters? ...Problem solved - let's party!!!...
Our emotions are important and part of what makes us human but I don't want to see emotions riding roughshod over rationality. Or our emotions being manipulated so easily for that matter. What happened to the inbuilt Australian bullshit detector? Emotions without logic can lead to crimes of passion and punching holes in walls. Logic without emotion is generally referred to as being psychopathic. Either on its own can be very destructive.
Wisdom comes from when our emotional and logical bearings are brought together to form opinion or to make a decision. Nelson Mandela said 'a good head and a good heart is always a formidable combination.' Shouldn't that be something worth striving for?
We need to ask ourselves why we stand where we do on certain issues. Is it emotion, fear or love that drives us? Are we deceiving ourselves? Are we leaning on our own understanding? Are we only listening to what we want to hear?
