The Ideological Bubble of
George Monbiot
Part 1 of 6:
Health & The Environment -
2016 Articles
Part 1 of 6: Health & The Environment - 2016 Articles
Part 2 of 6: Health & The Environment - 2017 Articles
Part 3 of 6: Health & The Environment - 2018 Articles
Part 4 of 6: Politcs, Culture & Society - 2016 Articles
Part 5 of 6: Politcs, Culture & Society - 2017 Articles
Part 6 of 6: Politcs, Culture & Society - 2018 Articles
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: November 27, 2018
Image Copyright belongs to Getty Images/Barcroft Media
*All parties receive one full day (24 hours) of pre-publication notice.
Before we start, I feel that an introduction is necessary. I have already written a few articles about the crazy ideologies that George Monbiot believes:
The Monbiot Effect Series Part 1 of 3: George Monbiot Goes Off the Deep End with His Obesity Article in the Guardian
The Monbiot Effect Series Part 2 of 3: George Monbiot's Feral Debunked
The Monbiot Effect Series Part 3 of 3: George Monbiot's Rewilding Soul
So why continue? Especially when he has prostate cancer. Personally, I believe it's out of respect. George Monbiot is a passionate environmental journalist. He's not as big as a TV news anchor, but he commands respect nonetheless. The idea that I should be less critical of him because of his prostate cancer is an insult to his intelligence. I doubt Monbiot would want sympathy.
Like everyone else, I'm sure that he wants people to listen to him and heed his advice/articles. However, I believe that Monbiot’s conclusions don't follow from the knowledge he's gained. I can't call it a logical fallacy because there’s almost no logic when it comes to human subjective experience, perception, and interpretation of reality. There's reason/rationality, but logic is an entirely separate beast (see Philosophy of Language in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
While Monbiot wants to turn people to his way of thinking (which is understandable), I would like to turn Monbiot to my way of thinking. Personally, I believe that he's close but can't go further because of two things: his prior investment of time and energy; and his audience.
His prior ideological investment is understandable. Everyone who's believed in something and realized it wasn't what they thought it was will be reluctant to try something new (publicly). Monbiot’s audience is another issue though. For every article he writes he has at least 1000 people commenting, which probably indicates at least 10,000 or more are reading it. That's a considerable audience. I'll admit it. I'm jealous. Potentially influencing over 10,000 people ranging from subtle to direct actions is a decent amount of influence. Every writer wants to be able to influence others with their words.
But that's the thing about an audience. It acts like a feedback loop. While a writer hopes to influence them, the audience in turn influences the writer. And the writer tailors more of their writing/actions to illicit a stronger response. And the stronger response in turn only feeds the writer more.
The best example of this is Alex Jones. While Jones was once a conspiracy theorist, today he's nothing more than a shill for President Trump. And that's on a good day. Prior to the rise of Trump, Jones already jumped off the deep end and became one with his ocean of followers. They demanded more radical content and he delivered. The new edgy content in turn radicalized his followers (like telling people to investigate Pizzagate and find the so-called missing children).
To be fair to conspiracy theorists, John Podesta's emails and Tony Podesta's art collection, with his weird images of children, is powerfully disturbing. [1] I'm aware that all official investigations turned up nothing, but you have to admit, the wording in the emails is quite strange. [2]
Another example of the audience feedback loop comes from YouTube. Like debates, comments/questions tend to reinforce the audiences ideologies. New justifications to believe X. And if you don’t keep giving your audience new content to reinforce their beliefs, they'll move on or call you a shill, misinformation, disinformation, fake news and such. Some followers will defend their idol to their last breath/key. Others feel entitled to know everything about their idol if they give monthly donations. But when those idols cut them lose, the backlash can be severe, career-ending, and emotionally draining.
Hence, there's a very good reason why people stay in their ideological bubbles. The consequences of a potential exit is usually too much to handle (including conservatives as well). While many liberals want conservatives to go outside their ideological bubble, almost none of them are willing to do the same. Why not? Because they believe their ideological bubble is made up of facts while a conservative bubble is made up of beliefs and fake news.
When you boil it all down, all writers (including me) argue that their ideologies/claims are correct and that all of their opponent's ideologies are wrong. But we’re not to suppose to say that. So we dress it up to make the debate look more sophisticated and equally balanced. A charade, but many would argue (not me) a necessary one in order to get the masses to read/listen/be influenced by ones writing/works.
George Monbiot is awake on most issues. He knows that our current form of democracy isn't really a democracy. He knows that international organizations like the UN, WTO and World Bank aren't helping people in developing nations. He knows that capitalism is a sociopathic ideology. He knows that Wall Street obeys rich elite white families who own much of the world. The only two things that he’s not awake on are climate change and health.
But to say that's he's not awake on some issues but awake on others doesn't make sense. It's more correct to say that Monbiot is awake on most issues but compartmentalizes climate change and health into their own ideological bubbles.
I want to try and crack those last two ideological bubbles for Monbiot. I highly doubt I'll be successful since he doesn't read these articles, but there's no reason why I can't try.
And with that, let's get into the intelligent world of George Monbiot. I'll pick up where I left off in the past articles, 2016.
In a September 2016 article, Monbiot laments the uselessness of the Paris agreement. [3] And I agree. A non-binding agreement is pretty much worthless. But in the eyes of climate change believers at the time, it has merit. It's quite sad when environmentalists can't see reality outside their own liberal/progressive ideological bubble.
Of course, in hindsight today in November 2018, most global warming believers are realizing that you can’t develop/extract oil, coal or natural gas and stay firm within the 1.5 - 2 Celsius warming. A peer-reviewed article in Nature Communications claimed that the warming would increase to over 5 Celsius by the end of the century because of the economies of 3 nations (Canada, Russia, and China). [4] Of course, don't tell that to Liberal Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau. He still believes that it's possible to maintain the 1.5 - 2 Celsius warming while using almost $7 billion in Canadian taxpayer dollars to buy, maintain, and expand the former Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline. [5]
The only good thing that the Trudeau government has done is the legalization of recreational marijuana. While that's a significant accomplishment, I would have supported decriminalization by a conservative government.
In the same article, Monbiot believes that the carbon capture technology in 2016 is akin to a magic wand. [3] And he's correct. Carbon capture is very costly and not proven to be significant as of November 2018. The ideology that future technology will bring new solutions to old environmental problems is a false illusion that Monbiot knows. And yet, he won't apply the same principle to nuclear power. In another September article, Monbiot affirms his support for nuclear power. [6] And what do we do with all that nuclear waste? Ship it to George Monbiot and see how it affects his prostate cancer.
What? Illegal hit, below the bit.
My apologies for the crude joke, but I'm dealing with The George Monbiot. I can't hold back against a strong opponent out of sympathy. It's insulting and disingenuous.
In the same article, Monbiot talks about developing small modular reactors that use nuclear waste as fuel. [6] Great idea in theory, but in reality it's akin to waving a magical wand. As of November 2018, there are no small modular reactors in operation at any level whatsoever.
In a request for comment I ask Monbiot:
1. In previous articles, you mention carbon capture as being akin to a magical wand but argue that small modular reactors that use depleted uranium is the solution for nuclear waste. Is that not akin to another magical wand since these reactors do not yet exist as of November 2018?
He doesn't respond.
In an October article, Monbiot points out that the expansion of the aviation industry is destroy the world due to it's supposedly catastrophic effects on climate change. [7] And that's the thing. Liberals and progressives claim that the majority of the public believe in global warming. But in reality, they're not actually doing anything about it. They might show up for a protest or give money, but they're still living the Western capitalistic lifestyle. And that lifestyle is completely incompatible with climate change doctrine (which Monbiot knows very well).
Instead of shrinking the global economy, in 2016 and today in 2018, the global economy is growing. It's only shrinking in some areas because of global trade wars, not because of demand. The demand for internet in the houses of more than 7 billion people...the demand for electricity in more than 7 billion houses...the demand for the Western lifestyle for more than 7 billion...is skyrocketing. Everyone (including most climate change believers) wants a piece of that sexy Western lifestyle, despite all of its negative effects (stress, racism, sexism, inequality, health problems).
As I've said in numerous prior articles, if you claim to believe in man-made climate change destroying the world, you have to be a vegan (Monbiot is a half-assed vegetarian like me), live in an apartment/condo, only use an electric car, refuse to travel by plane, and commit to a minimalist lifestyle.
To be fair to Monbiot, he says that he limits his flying to once every 3 years. [7] And that's quite impressive. If everyone who calls themselves a climate change believer did the same, the aviation industry would be shrinking by now. But it's not. It's only growing. Why? Because climate change believers don't really believe carbon emissions from planes, animals and cars will destroy the Earth. They don't say that publicly, but that's what they believe through their actions.
In a November article, Monbiot condemns diesel cars for their pollution (yay), but sh*ts on all cars in general (boo). [8] Oddly enough, there’s no mention that prior to the 2015 Volkswagen dieselgate scandal, liberals viewed diesel as a savior of the planet due to its low carbon emissions. Yes, climate change believers all over the world once showered diesel cars with praise and worship equivalent to religious believers at an Evangelical church.
In regards to cars, Monbiot says that:
A study in Bristol shows how cars slash the social fabric like so many knives.
...Cars encourage the extreme individualism that makes a sense of common purpose hard to achieve.[8]
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Atheists like Monbiot shouldn't talk about purpose in one's life.
I don't know about the streets of UK cities, but in Canada, public transportation in the low income areas is not something people look forward to. When we get on the bus in the morning, all tightly packed, I don't really see a lot of communal activities and common interests being served. I see people keeping to themselves and not wanting to interact with anyone else.
In another November article, Monbiot decries Trump's environmental policy in trying to bring back America's manufacturing sector. [9]
Just so you know, climate change believers hate a growing economy. Every time the US economy grows under any administration, climate change believers weep for the planet. I say let them cry. Maybe their tears can refill the groundwater they keep sucking up instead of using desalinated ocean water. Don't get me started.
At the end of the article, Monbiot sh*ts on all Western-European governments in their failure to govern people in a sustainable manner. Fine. But what’s your recommendation? If you're going to say it's garbage, you better have a plan B ready for criticism. But that's thing. Monbiot, like so many environmentalists believe/want a blank slate to start over again.
Note to environmentalists. There is no such thing as a blank slate. Get over it. If you want to change the world, you'll have to do it from the current form of governance. My attempt is through skoparxism and radical dualism (see the Philosophy Reborn series). What's your plan?
References:
[1] Zeropointnow. SICK: Let's Revisit The Podesta Penchant For Pedophilic, Cannibalistic, And Satanic Art. iBankCoin. November 26, 2016.
[2] Adl-Tabatabai, Sean. WikiLeaks: Pedophile 'Code Words' Found In Podesta Emails. News Punch. November 4, 2016.
[3] Monbiot, George. No fracking, drilling or digging: it's the only way to save life on Earth. Guardian. September 27, 2016.
[4] Watts, Jonathan. Policies of China, Russia and Canada threaten 5C climate change, study finds. Guardian. November 16, 2018.
[5] Livesey, Bruce. Did Canada buy an oil pipeline in fear of being sued by China? Guardian. May 31, 2018.
[6] Monbiot, George. Nuclear power – yes please. Hinkley Point – no thanks. Guardian. September 15, 2016.
[7] Monbiot, George. Climate change means no airport expansion – at Heathrow or anywhere. Guardian. October 18, 2016.
[8] Monbiot, George. Cars don't just choke our children – they tear a hole in our communities. Guardian. November 8, 2016.
[9] Monbiot, George. Trump's climate denial is just one of the forces that point towards war. Guardian. November 23, 2016.