If you haven't looked at this dress yet, then you've either just come out of a cryogenic freeze or somehow you've managed to avoid the rest of the internet on your online journey to my blog (in either extremely unlikely event, read this before going any further). We each look at the same picture and because of some evolutionary differences in the way that we perceive colors 68% of people see white and gold and 32% see blue and black. So, since we live in a democracy does that make the dress white and gold? No. Even though most people's intuition is screaming that it's white and gold, the dress is in fact black and blue. The color we see is just our brain's interpretation of the visual evidence, and facts (such as the actual color of the dress) don't change what we see.*
Our upbringing, experiences, and mental wiring all contribute to our experienced reality as our brains continually sort through an overwhelming amount of data. The different ways we interpret information lead to our individual biases (liberal/conservative, pro-GMO/anti-GMO, blue dress/white dress, etc.), and the online media and social bubbles we surround ourselves with just reaffirm those biases. When trying to bridge that widening chasm we cite facts and then shout at each other in frustration, condescension, and self-righteous indignation. As I wrote about a few weeks ago, we become internet assholes. And, after all of that, some people still see blue and black and some people see white and gold.
But, just as the dress is in fact blue and black, there are core truths out there. As this National Geographic article clearly articulates, it's counter intuitive to believe that the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around), that humans evolved from sea creatures, and that carbon dioxide (which we all exhale) is changing our climate. We are notoriously bad at accepting what the truth is rather than what we want it to be. Which is why Galileo spent the last nine years of his life under house arrest, four in ten Americans continue to believe humans were created by God 10,000 years ago, and we continue to catastrophically alter our climate.
Science can give us truths (or get us near to them), but we're still often left with shitty answers. Knowing that the only solution to climate change is a drastic reduction in carbon emissions doesn't get us any closer to reducing emissions. Only government can do that.
And, with those five words I have successfully alienated half of my potential readers. The expansion of governmental authority necessitated by the climate crisis sets off alarm bells in the neural pathways of all conservatives. The same alarm bells that inevitably go off in 62% of the population when I say that the dress is blue and black.
"Trust your intuition," is the response I most commonly hear when arguing the merits of genetic modification. And, yes, my intuition sets off a quiet alarm bell every time I consciously take a bite of food that I know has been genetically modified. And, for years I opposed the technology and the seed companies who perpetuate it. If your intuition also tells you that genetic modification is an assault on nature, then we're seeing the same color dress.** But, because I trust the scientific method and I understand the incredible benefits of biotech, I now go beyond my intuition to support genetic engineering. With no physical evidence to support the notion, I also believe scientists when they tell me that the earth revolves around the sun.
In our new age of extreme tribalism, we discredit sources who we disagree with. Because I've shown my hand as a liberal by saying "only government can do that" and because I'm a committed evangelist for genetic engineering-- I have alienated myself from the large majority of people. About half the country is conservative and 80% of remaining liberals are "concerned" about genetic engineering. That doesn't leave very many people in my lonely camp. If you still regularly read my blog (or if you've gotten this far) chances are that you agree with me (somewhere around 10% of the population is in this camp). Those who disagree are back at Foxnews.com or Naturalnews.com.
The internet makes it too easy to isolate ourselves in like minded groups and enables us to search out a limitless amount of literature and news sources that agree with us. As we drift further apart the other side looks increasingly illogical and immoral. I've repeatedly been called an industry shill for my defense of both Kaua'i Island Utility Co-op and the seed companies. Employees of the seed companies have been called baby killers. Vehement pro-GMO activists have called for the "absolute destruction of the anti-Science movement" and a testifier at a recent Kaua'i County Council meeting said that government consists of a "bunch of scum sucking parasites." If we don't understand the other side, it's easy to subscribe simplified notions to their motivations. Mayor Carvalho must be in the pocket of the seed companies and Councilmen Gary Hooser is just a self-serving politician.*** Our biases and intuitions lead us into opposing camps, those camps spit out simplified reasoning for why the other side is wrong, and it reinforces itself until we are so polarized that we can't even have a dialogue.
But, once again, the dress really is blue and black. Buried beneath the bullshit, the flaming arrows, and the moral mud are some truths. Sometimes they are aligned with our mental reasoning and sometimes they are not. The challenge is to go beyond our intuition to find those truths. And, in so doing, to get to some solutions.
As Larry Tool wrote in a recent Civil Beat article: "No matter how right we think we are, we need to remember that we may still be mistaken. More important yet, even if our opponent is wrong, we still need to defend his or her right to participate on equal terms. Once we forget that, we are on the way to losing the free society which makes activism possible."
I am in a camp. I see blue and black, I voted for Obama, and I am pro-vaccine. But, when I see contrary evidence (as in the case of GMOs) I have to force myself to step out of my mental comfort zone. It's what scientists, by definition, have to do. It's what a good journalist does. And it's what makes for effective leaders. Camps define us as human beings. They allow us to empathize with similar individuals and create cohesive tribes. But, our ability to step out of our individual camps and accept evidence, even when it assaults our subconscious, is what moved us from rain dances to meteorology and human sacrifices to modern medicine.
While it may be as futile as putting on a seatbelt while at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, and this was a much longer introduction than I had intended, I hope to start systematically digging deeper into each of the monstrous issues we face as an island. What fundamental truths are at the base of our deepest problems, and how can those truths illuminate a path forward?**** Most importantly, how can we change the status-quo?
Because my mind is still swirling around waste to energy, I'm going to start with energy. What are the options and can we realistically move to 100% renewable energy? I don't have much free time, so, like always, my posts will be sporadic and far between. If you're looking for moral outrage or good vs evil justifications, you won't find it here. For the small camp of readers that are still with me, thank you for reading. As much as I hope to challenge you in my writing, I encourage you to challenge me in the comments.
* For the record, I see blue and black. But, for about 30 seconds it switched clearly to white and gold and then back again. I understand both perceptions, but I also know there is only one right answer.
** That was meant figuratively, not literally.
*** Obviously I disagree with both of those simplified moral judgements. But, interestingly, in trying to find the term of speech for moral judgements like that, I stumbled into the Galileo Gambit: just because someone is persecuted for their belief doesn't make their belief any more true. It's tangentially relevant and worth the quick wikipedia read.
**** Just for clarification, I am not an investigative journalist or a science reporter. Luckily, we have both on Kaua'i (check out Joan Conrow at Kaua'i Eclectic and Jan Tenbruggencate at Raising Islands). I'm just someone who likes to research and is committed to spending a few hours a week regurgitating information that is readily available online.
Thank you for this excellent piece. I strongly identify with you, including seeing the dress as blue and black.
ReplyDeleteThank you Michael! Good to know I'm not completely alone :)
DeleteThank you for writing this - I enjoyed reading your perspective. It's really the beauty of science. The facts speak, no matter if we choose to believe them. Let's hope policy in Hawaii is made on science and facts, not on what some people believe to be true but isn't.
ReplyDeleteI love you. never stop writing these articles. but can you break up the text with more photos throughout... my attention span is too short to read the whole thing...
ReplyDelete:)
DeleteI put lots of pictures in this piece:http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-do-they-do.html But, then I realized that I'd probably broken some copyright law somewhere and stopped stealing pictures online. Unless you want pictures of my cats and chickens in every piece, probably best to stay away from them. I recommend reading three paragraphs, going paddling, then reading three more paragraphs.
I have a lot of 'intuitive' responses/reaction to this read, so I must stir on it. I see where you are coming from here, however, its a bit convenient for you to choose your truth as the sympathetic point of the metaphor, no?
ReplyDeleteI am also beginning to see you as a iconoclast, but on an island where the loudest voices are less rational perhaps, irony? Keep up the great work brother, thanks for the provoking ideas.
I'm not sure I understand. http://i.imgur.com/RsvSM5N.jpg
DeleteThe dress is blue and gold/brown. It's not "my" truth-- it's just what is. I used it as a metaphor because it's the clearest example I know of where there is an objective truth, yet most people see something completely different. I actually wish that I saw white and gold, because it would've made the piece more persuasive if I saw the wrong color-- but, by evolutionary chance, I see the correct color (or close to it). Which was my point… our perceptions are irrelevant.
If you're talking about genetic modification being a convenient topic-- I used it because it's something that I clearly "feel" is wrong, but I over-rule my intuition with the current scientific evidence. If there is ever evidence that there is some type of detrimental gene transfer from genetically modified foods that there isn't from traditional breeding, then my stance would change with the evidence. But… so far there is nothing of the sort.
As an example of that, for my entire life I've taken Vitamin C when I get sick. Yet, I know longer do because there's no evidence that it helps. I had to over-rule my basic understanding because of the complete lack of scientific backing: http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/vitamin-c-colds
Thanks for reading and commenting.
-->I'm not sure I understand.
DeleteYou seem a lot more educated then I am and eloquently sharing your view, pls bare with me.
Your perception = your truth. How you see the image of the dress does not change the dress neither does it change the perception of others who see it differently. To use this metaphor as justification to your perception is calling your reality ... the reality.
I might not be doing a good job explaining myself, I apologize.
How far do you want to go down this rabbit hole of reality, perception and fact? It reads to me as the foundation of your leap to '..and thus we must not trust our intuition'. So it seems to me an important part of understanding the argument.
My intuition not only tells me the color of the dress (brown/black and blue) it also tells me that I am looking at an image/photo of a dress, not a dress, how much of that effects this scenario? If we were to all be able to see this dress in the physical world would we see the same colors or different as is the phenomena with the image?
To me, this provokes the question of our human experience, what is our reality and how much of it is perception and presentation of it? Reality is a rorshack ink blot.
So back to omg ..i mean gmo
Scientific ruling = image of the dress, not the dress. The color you see = your perception on reality.
Once again, sorry if im rushing this and not clear in my writing, also I hope I dont come across as dissing your view, i really enjoyed it, just offering my intuitive response ;)
-->If you're talking about genetic modification being a convenient topic
We tend to see things as we want to, or as our minds have projected them, to be correct, or safe or "winning". This is what commercially motivated business tends to do, align facts and science with their belief. Its part of the same pattern. To question this behavior is not to question science, as goes is the stigma.
There is a poignant zen saying;
Blue mountains are of themselves blue mountains, white clouds are of themselves white clouds.
The flow of nature, the non-attachment of life. Nature flows without obstruction, whether we know it or not. For not knowing is a variant of the pattern. If you understand, things are as they are, if you don't understand, things are as they are.
I guess we have many shades and hues in our spectrum of reality, I hope for a world where we come together to celebrate the differences and allow them to have a place, as with the gmo issue.
Thanks for challenging the questions
nice clickbait, luke. the issue of perception is valid, but so too are the facts. it is critical that we make sure we are correctly identifying which facts are in question. sure the dress may be black and blue, but the real question people were asked was not about the dress itself - it was about the picture of the dress, and in truth, none of the pixels in that image were blue or black, so therein lies the rub.
ReplyDeletejust as I have never opposed the experimental investigation of the new technology of gene splicing -- my position has always been this technique may have merit, it should be explored, under scientifically controlled conditions within a contained environment -- but hat is not the condition nor the control of this technology. Capitalism and and the short term profit desire is what drives this technology forward, and 'science' in this case, as well in may others, is content to serve this master, as long as it pays the bills. So again, there-in lies the rub.
At the core of the gmo/pesticide debate (that just with the picture of the dress, many fail to properly recognize) is the real crux of the issue: Who gets to decide? What values drive the situation? Who profits? Who pays the price of the externalized costs?
If the GMO/Chem companies were feeding the world (vs. moving to consolidate monopoly control of the food system), if they were in support of diversified agriculture (instead of moving to even further centralize production of even larger-scale mono-cropping), if they were building up the health of the soil (vs. reducing it to a sterilized medium in which to hold roots), and if their research was true peer-available science (instead of aggressively privatized commodities)...(and this list could go on)... THEN myself and many others views of this corporate behavior would be very different.
I know you to be an intellectually honest balanced critical thinker. I know you work rigorously to maintain a rational, fact based approach to issues. Because of this, I know, that you, unlike many other who miss the technology for the commerce, the forest for the strip-mining of our global industrial model, the economic growth for the carbon-loading of our atmosphere, you can see these connections. I know you know industrial capitalism for all it's beneficial aspects is also destroying the planet. If we are going to keep discussion inside the realm of facts, which I support, lets make sure we are talking about the facts that matter most. Let's not confuse the pixels for the fabric.
Jonathan, it's only your perception that makes it appear white and gold. The pixels are in fact blue and brown: http://i.imgur.com/RsvSM5N.jpg.
DeleteWhen you ask "who gets to decide?" In the case of the dress, we can't let our intuition (or perception) change reality.
It's not the seed companies who are the ones rewarding bad farming practices by purchasing the cheapest possible food--- it's us. Genetic modification has nothing to do with bad farming practices, such as a lack of crop rotation, over reliance on nitrogen fertilizer, lack of cover crops between seasons etc. So, I agree--- let's not conflate the issue.
if you read my post carefully, you will clearly see i never said the dress was white or gold. how could you and why would make any assumptions about what l perceived? That seems to miss the point.
DeleteMy point is that it is irrelevant that the physical dress is black and blue (NOT blue and brown as you conflated) if we are all looking at the pixels (which range in tone from a variety of pale cool slates and various shades of various tan, brown or dun. It is so easy to allow ourselves to be misdirected -- allow the depiction of a thing be confused for the thing itself - they each have their own reality, and we had best be clear to which we refer when making our arguments.
And so it is too with the whole gmo discussion. Yes, you are correct, it is not the seed/chem companies rewarding bad farming practices, but neither is it you or I, it is the global market system of industrial capitalism that allows the externalization of real costs. And there in lies the big big problem that I know you have correctly identified elsewhere - industrial capitalism and unfettered market forces that externalize the negative consequences of their systems, and not only insulate, but actually reward hyper-minorities making decisions to the detriment of the rest of us.
This is what i refer to when i ask who gets to decide, not the color of the dress. I am asking who gets to decide the purpose and to what objective the gmo technology is being deployed. If there were no patents (assertion of privatized ownership), and instead a bunch of non-profit nutritionists were using gmo technology to improve the taste, flavor and vitamin levels or increase the nutrative caloric density of the crop, or increasing a plants ability to resist stress and grow in more margnial climates and were distributing it to afflicted lands to help them better feed their populations, that would be one thing - they would in fact be helping to feed the world. but that is not the way gmo technology is controlled. They design to better suit market conditions, to work in conjunction with their chemical line of products, to improve the shipping durability, and create uniform appearance al toward the improvement of their bottom line -- not to improve the social welfare, and THAT is what I am saying is the problem - the capitalist system that places the profits of few above the welfare of many, while they destroy the planet. The same deranged industrial model that externalizes negative outcomes, and pretends they don't exist because they have been excluded from the bottom line.
Look, profits are up! (while acidification of the oceans continues).
So too it is with GMO monocropping, which I am sure you will agree is a poor farming practice, but one that is inseperable from the entire enterprise of genetic modification, because the creation of a fantastic scale of 'deployed' plants with a highly specific series of qualities is the very premise of plant breeding by industrial agricutlure in the first place, so not the technology but the drive to define has everything to do with the objectives of gmo breeding.
i am not saying, nor have i ever said the technology is irredemable. It is the arena in which they are controlled that is truly toxic. So, yes, let's not conflate them. Let's agree the real agency of destruction is the tyranous market system that recognizes no other value system, and we shall remain trapped within until we can clearly distinguish the pixels from the dress.- the one that breeds inequality, insulates the hyper-opulent decision makers from the consequence of their action, and is destroying our world, one degree at a time.
I saw the dress as white and gold -- and I also believe that one can rely on and trust science, and also one's intuition. Because both have served me well! I would love to see the whole GMO discussion move beyond Monsanto and corn/soy because there are many other applications of the technology, and it's a mistake to dismiss them all as "Monsatan" and thus evil.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I have to note that when Jonathan Jay commented, "If there were no patents (assertion of privatized ownership), and instead a bunch of non-profit nutritionists were using gmo technology to improve the taste, flavor and vitamin levels or increase the nutrative caloric density of the crop, or increasing a plants ability to resist stress and grow in more margnial climates and were distributing it to afflicted lands to help them better feed their populations, that would be one thing" -- he apparently does not realize that such efforts are indeed under way. One example is "golden rice."