I feel like I had a slightly different takeaway than the author intended to make: namely, that this is a great example of exactly the wrong way to make an argument. Maybe this was actually what he intended, but I don't think it was.
But let me back track a bit. There is a lot to say here about choosing an antagonistic way of presenting an idea, but one tiny nitpick affected me in particular. I was actually following fine and agreeing perfectly well up until his proposed solution of solving everything by simply making a law. Now, the problem isn't necessarily that I don't think this is the best solution, but the fact that he clearly does not actually understand the libertarian position, and thus completely fails to convince me by using the wrong counter arguments to hypothetical objections he imagines I have. His assumption is that libertarians value ridiculous personal freedoms more than the environment, and thus spends his time explaining how much the externalities of wood burning outweigh whatever silly freedom I may be concerned with this week. This is equivalent to patronizing someone who is for drug legalization by explaining to them that, actually, drugs are bad, and that's why they need to be illegal silly.
I think he can't fathom that I may actually be 100% in agreement with his goal (to reduce wood burning), and yet reach a completely different conclusion as to the method to achieve it. A big part of the libertarian argument is actually quite consequentialist: make this illegal and you may very well find the the amount of wood burning go up, or at least not decreasing at all. If its obvious to you that that's not the case, then it should be easy to prove. To convince me (and it is totally possible), I'd actually be curious to know things such as: is wood burning already decreasing on its own and thus not require a law and all sorts of strange enforcement practices? Are we sure that enforcing such a law wouldn't unexpectedly require another form of pollution (wouldn't be the first time an environmental law had that result). Have we really exhausted all other approaches including education on the subject? Etc. Etc.
I get the sense that what he wants us to walk away with is "look how hard the truth can be to accept if you don't know it", but I think the real takeaway is seeing how little we understand our audience sometimes. Whether the argument is political or religious, the favored method of argumentation seems to be "shock and awe". Showing people that as it turns out, they're actually assholes and didn't even know it! Then following up by belittling their values and explaining why your values are more important. This rarely works. I think people's goals are actually way more aligned than we think they are, but understandably we have reached different conclusions on how to reach those goals (again, the drug legalization issue is a great example). To finally bring it full circle, I think this is certainly true of religious arguments. I'm certain there is a much better path than trying to beat into people's heads how stupid they've actually been their whole lives and how they're partially responsible for so much suffering in the world by perpetuating this "terrible" thing.
For reference, there are places where this kind of MEDC recreational wood-burning is illegal, and it is easily enforceable without causing other problems. For example (I'm not sure of the specifics), but wood-burning is illegal in built-up areas of the UK. It's pretty trivially enforceable actually - if a police officer happens to see smoke coming out of a chimney, they'll knock on the door and ask you to put it out. There's not a lot of potential for 'underground' wood-burning, and the law has pretty good public support, since in London smogs killed literally thousands of people at a time, in living memory.
Yup. My Dad will tell of the great smog in '52 if you ask him.
Note that it's still possible to burn 'smokeless' fuels, including some forms of treated wood IIRC, very high quality coal & it's perfectly ok to burn wood in a high-temperature wood burning stove, which are much cleaner than an open fire.
Wow, thanks for sharing this. I knew about the Great Smog of 1952 from, uh, science fiction (Neil Gaiman's novelization of _Neverwhere_) but it had not occurred to me to wonder why my recently built flat does not have a fireplace.
Apparently my colleagues all know this — everyone just knows that it's OK to burn smokeless coal (anthracite) but not wood.
> I get the sense that what he wants us to walk away with is "look how hard the truth can be to accept if you don't know it",
I felt his point was that people have a position, and when they listen to you they accept things that support their position and automatically question things that undermine their position.
(Although I agree the article is unclear and not particularly well written.)
This is problematic because smart people tend to know they're smart; tend to believe they're rational; and tend to feel that they cannot fall victim to the same irrationality that allows people to believe in astrology; and that when they explore ideas they're not going to come up with weak, unscientific, flawed, explanations.
Some things are clearly nonsense, and we tend to reject those quickly. (Homeopathy; ghosts; astrology; fan death.)
But other things have a veneer of respectability. They're presented by real doctors in real hospitals and they have a sensible plausible mechanism behind them. Knee arthroscopy is a great example of this. Many people went through operations (with the risks involved of infection and anaesthesia) when there wasn't any good science showing any benefit. When controlled trials were done, with one group getting the real surgery and the control group getting a sham surgery, we saw that knee arthroscopy had little benefit above placebo.
I strongly agree with your post; especially the parts about persuading people that they might be wrong. "Huh, you're a scientologist, and thus you're an idiot!" is satisfying but futile. (If the desired result is to weaken scientology by reducing their numbers and converting people back from scientology. (And where scientology can be replaced by creationism or anything.))
Sam Harris is no libertarian -- quite the opposite. His prescriptions for almost everything come down to laws and regulations, developed and enforced by an educated, knows-better-than-you elite.
He should work for Michael Bloomberg. CNO: Chief Nanny Officer?
Sometimes regulations are simply the right answer.
The tragedy of the commons is a thing & communal regulation is the response that works. I can't think of anything that fits the definition of 'a commons' better than the air that you and I breathe.
Right, I wasn't saying that he is doing a bad job of representing the libertarian position. I was just saying that he does a bad job of arguing against it (and in general does a bad job of presenting this entire idea). If that's not what you meant then my apologies for misunderstanding your comment.
He really doesn't seem to get libertarians, I agree.
But you're acting like the pain of the truth is his fault.
And it's not like he, let alone the world, isn't full of softer messages, but those work on the (few) people who they work for and for everyone else there are other things. That people are claiming his messages are so maddening just shows they're blind to anything not pointed or they'd have encountered these thoughts already in a way they would have found more palatable.
In fact, they're not even outraged, it's just the next step in the courtroom joke.
"When you have the law on your side, but not the facts, pound the law. When you have the facts on your side, but not the law, pound the facts. And, when you have neither law nor facts on your side, pound the table."
Nobody is kicking down your grandmother's door and making her defend christmas. Just don't read something you consider harsh if all you are going to do is whine if it is.
But let me back track a bit. There is a lot to say here about choosing an antagonistic way of presenting an idea, but one tiny nitpick affected me in particular. I was actually following fine and agreeing perfectly well up until his proposed solution of solving everything by simply making a law. Now, the problem isn't necessarily that I don't think this is the best solution, but the fact that he clearly does not actually understand the libertarian position, and thus completely fails to convince me by using the wrong counter arguments to hypothetical objections he imagines I have. His assumption is that libertarians value ridiculous personal freedoms more than the environment, and thus spends his time explaining how much the externalities of wood burning outweigh whatever silly freedom I may be concerned with this week. This is equivalent to patronizing someone who is for drug legalization by explaining to them that, actually, drugs are bad, and that's why they need to be illegal silly.
I think he can't fathom that I may actually be 100% in agreement with his goal (to reduce wood burning), and yet reach a completely different conclusion as to the method to achieve it. A big part of the libertarian argument is actually quite consequentialist: make this illegal and you may very well find the the amount of wood burning go up, or at least not decreasing at all. If its obvious to you that that's not the case, then it should be easy to prove. To convince me (and it is totally possible), I'd actually be curious to know things such as: is wood burning already decreasing on its own and thus not require a law and all sorts of strange enforcement practices? Are we sure that enforcing such a law wouldn't unexpectedly require another form of pollution (wouldn't be the first time an environmental law had that result). Have we really exhausted all other approaches including education on the subject? Etc. Etc.
I get the sense that what he wants us to walk away with is "look how hard the truth can be to accept if you don't know it", but I think the real takeaway is seeing how little we understand our audience sometimes. Whether the argument is political or religious, the favored method of argumentation seems to be "shock and awe". Showing people that as it turns out, they're actually assholes and didn't even know it! Then following up by belittling their values and explaining why your values are more important. This rarely works. I think people's goals are actually way more aligned than we think they are, but understandably we have reached different conclusions on how to reach those goals (again, the drug legalization issue is a great example). To finally bring it full circle, I think this is certainly true of religious arguments. I'm certain there is a much better path than trying to beat into people's heads how stupid they've actually been their whole lives and how they're partially responsible for so much suffering in the world by perpetuating this "terrible" thing.