Are we living in the age of stupid? The era of the idiot? The answer of course is yes, with examples of monstrous moronicism everywhere – from climate deniers to the “plandemic” crowd who believe Covid-19 was cooked up in Bill Gates’ basement. On the other hand, human beings have always been illogical creatures. A better question is whether we are, as a species, becoming dumberer. If this is already the era of the idiot, what comes next?
Good question!
The Guardian in Australia recently reviewed the cult classic, Idiocracy. I never heard of the 2006 film directed by Mike Judge on what was viewed at the time as a comedy but now seems 'like a documentary on our present and future'.
Suggesting that morons rather than nerds will inherit the earth, and that the results will be catastrophic, the film begins with a context-setting intro so real it hurts. Judge cuts between an intelligent adult couple discussing why they won’t be having children right now (“not with the market the way it is”) and a ... less intelligent couple breeding like rabbits (“I thought youse was on the pill or some shit?”).
Observing that “evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence”, the narrator explains that “with no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most – and left the intelligent to become an endangered species”.
In the current era I couldn’t help but think of the BirthStrikers, taking a reasoned response to the climate crisis while hordes of the hoi polloi refuse to accept there is even a problem. Also that famous quote often attributed to Charles Bukowski: “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
There is a stark and painful reality for those who understand sapiens destiny, whether in detail or the big picture, that we will not likely survive the warming of our planet.
NASA agrees, but we can avoid the worst consequences if we immediately take meaningful action. Of course, we will. wink
Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.
While the effects of human activities on Earth's climate to date are irreversible on the timescale of humans alive today, every little bit of avoided future temperature increases results in less warming that would otherwise persist for essentially forever. The benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions occur on the same timescale as the political decisions that lead to those reductions.
Without major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by 2.5 °C to 4.5 °C (4.5 °F to 8 °F) by 2100, according to the latest estimates.
If we act in a meaningful way, some may survive multiple extinction points NASA emphasizes. But we won't because we are governed by those who know our destiny will result in billions of lost lives because we are baked into runaway climate disruption since the beginning of the Great Acceleration starting in the 1950s. They won't act at least in a meaningful way. The fascists will never act because the suffering and pain of others keep them in power.
We in the environmental movement are indeed at our wit's end. So many of us today and those who are no longer with us have fought for decades to rally a population with facts and reason. People are too distracted from contemplating the complexities of a slow-moving crisis and believe it to be happening only to "them" (people of color in the developing world).
Eyes become crossed, and people shut down when we attempt to engage; they no longer hear the information that tries to warn them of a dangerous event that is bearing down on them. Instead, the mind plans tonight's dinner or watching a game on ESPN. They are not listening.
Being gentle with the reality of climate change does not work, dumping the grim science on the table for them to see does not work. Nothing works.
So what might? Humor notes acclaimed climate scientist Michael Mann.
So how can climate advocates break through this calcified information environment? We have to look for another way in. Humor and satire can help. Though a serious scientist at heart, I’m a convert to this way of thinking. It’s why I’ve done interviews with Bill Maher and Al Franken. And it’s why I’ve partnered with editorial cartoonist Tom Toles to communicate the climate crisis. It’s the same reason Charlie Chaplin deployed humor as a clarion call against fascism and antisemitism, and as a wake-up call for America to eschew neutrality and rescue Europe from Hitler’s Germany: Humor and satire are powerful vehicles for change. And scientific research supports this.
Recent peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that humor is a powerful tool for engaging the public on climate change. These studies followed a March 2017 report of the American Psychological Association that defined ecoanxiety as “chronic fear of environmental doom.” The report described an increase in depression and anxiety caused by peoples’ “inability to feel like they are making a difference in stopping climate change” but that “climate-change humor stops people from worrying about their politics and lets them take in the information. . . . Scientists don’t always understand their audience. Getting someone to laugh is half of the work of getting them to understand.”
Which brings me back to “Don’t Look Up.” McKay’s film succeeds not because it’s funny and entertaining; it’s serious sociopolitical commentary posing as comedy. It’s a cautionary tale about the climate crisis stitched together by McKay’s signature biting humor. That’s the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down.
As we look toward the next decade — a critical decade from the standpoint of averting truly catastrophic climate change — we need more unconventional endeavors like “Don’t Look Up” to communicate the perils of climate inaction. Scientific research, on its own, will travel only so far (until scientists distill a 900-page report into a 90-second TikTok). Science isn’t finished until it’s successfully communicated.
I don't always agree with Mann, but I think he's onto something here.
The writers in Climate Brief work to keep the Daily Kos community informed and engaged with breaking news about the climate crisis worldwide while providing inspiring stories of environmental heroes, opportunities for direct engagement, and perspectives on the intersection of climate activism with spirituality politics arts.