This conversation with Dr. Pauly, spanned many topics - understanding history, the difficult necessity of change, and the strange nature of the human animal. Somewhere in there, we even tried to reckon with the non-material aspects of biology, and how futile it is to treat humans as nothing more than a stack of inanimate atoms.
But more than anything else, the trio circled around the tricky question of starting points in science. How can we navigate to an explanation, if we aren’t sure of the phenomenon itself? Take, for example, the Earth’s focus on the causal relationship between man-made CO2 and global temperatures. This assumption about carbon dioxide then leads scientists to the conclusion that reducing its emission will ultimately stabilize the climate.
But what if Earthlings have made a mistake, and managing CO2 is a necessary - rather than sufficient condition, for maintaining the wellbeing of the planet? What if there are other, equally insidious threats to humans and their habitat, like pesticides, industrial waste, single-use plastics, or overconsumption? Currently, the conversation about carbon dioxide is totalizing, with only one correct answer - that industrial interventions are necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and that the planet’s climate must be stabilized and prevented from further change.
This is one of those cases where getting where you want to go, rather than just getting somewhere, requires more than a mastery of logic. It also requires a careful evaluation of that first assumption - much like navigating by the north star requires actually knowing the north star. When our ability to correctly estimate a reliable starting point is compromised - either by time, politics, or belief - it becomes almost impossible to reach a robust conclusion about anything - whether it’s orienteering, the fate of the climate, or what to have for breakfast.
In the case of science, the systematic process by which we understand material existence, our conclusions can only be sturdy only if we start by considering all of the possibilities. If one refuses to consider a possibility because it complicates a political message or undermines a belief system, no amount of logic can lead to understanding.
