Impact
First a quick disclaimer
This one is gonna discuss some controversial stuff in what I hope is in a non-controversial way. Keep in mind that while opinions may differ, it’s important to still maintain a level of civility so that everyone can learn more about each other and think critically. Kinda like the goal of this blog anyway. Nobody owns the facts, after all.
Now onto the show
I’ve noticed a growing trend, likely due to the increased usage of social media, of the effectiveness of emotional arguments and personal testimony in various calls to action. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact emotional arguments are a pedestal into how rhetoric (the art of persuasion) works. The famous rhetorical triangle by Aristotle (still taught in many communications classes globally) has three parts: logos, pathos, and ethos.
Social media has made all sorts of “logical” arguments more visible, that is there is a constant bombardment of social media designed to inform users aggressively as to how the world works around them. This is logos, the facts and logic that exist in the world around us. A scientist publishes an academic report stating that water levels in Lake Michigan are 601 inches. This is presumably an objective fact, and is verifiable by simply going out and seeing it for yourself. While facts are probably easier to verify today, this property of them has not changed.
Why would you though? That’s where a little thing called reputation (ethos) comes into play.
Nobody owns the facts, but everyone wants you to buy into “the facts”
Whose do you accept? Whose do you reject? Generally you can trust statistics reported by the government agencies and impartial researchers. It’d be kinda weird to doubt the depth of Lake Michigan because the US Army Corps of Engineers gather this data and shares it with the public for the common good.
The depth of Lake Michigan is a bipartisan issue.
When it comes to more controversial things, reputation and bias are under higher scrutiny, to the point where getting your information from a mega-corporation with ability similar to a government agency is deemed not as satisfactory because it came from “that media company”. This is an example of how ethos affects one’s rhetoric in today’s times, despite this phenomenon not being very new.
As you can imagine, pathos is the part of rhetoric that is the most controversial, especially in the age of social media. Social media was first designed, primarily for personal use. Sharing your experiences with a social circle that was, in the Myspace days, less than Dunbar’s number. It is clear today that social media is more than sharing pictures of your dog at his bday partay with your bffs and more about becoming the new common area for political dialouge and news curation.
Do the majority of people measure how deep Lake Michigan is?
Despite about a quarter of the United States having a Bachelor’s in Science (or Art or whatever), most of those who went to State University are not describing themselves as a scientist. That doesn’t demean the status of having a BS at all, but you don’t need a degree to have an opinion. Opinions aren’t facts. Opinions can be based on facts, but there are many layers of bias, context, culture, experience, and values that prevent an utterly objective set of idealism. This is one way to demonstrate why people have idols at some point in their life, whether it be their parents while in their youth or a deity to demonstrate how to be an ideal self.
What’s a solution to climate change? Limiting the use of plastic straws? Reducing how many plastic bags one uses?
Ooh I know! How about a good ‘ole fashioned genocide? - Michael Meyers 2020
Factually, makes sense. If there were less people on Earth, there would be less trash, less resource usage, fewer things to have to share. But nobody would ever be taken seriously if one was seriously proposing Thanos-ing the world because, well, generally that’s seen as inhumane. This is why pathos, appeal to emotion and to the audience, is so important when persuading people to one side or another. Nobody would agree to acting differently to how their mind thinks, as that would create cognitive dissonance.
It is my belief that this is why social media becomes more and more divisive. While there are echo chambers and advertisements and trolls and all sorts of other explanations as to why the phenomena we saw in 2016 with hyper-political content is starting to happen again in 2020, I think this fundamental issue with rhetoric is at the core.
What is the largest thing, man-made activity to affect the climate changing? According to the EPA, electricity and heat production. Then, industry. Next, agriculture and forestry. Surprisingly transportation is 14% of emissions in 2010, but that includes all forms of transportation, like planes and cargo ships.
Okay, some facts and figures of what produces greenhouses gasses. So why is it that some people are wanting to save energy in buying electric cars when in reality it’d be more productive to reduce the greenhouse gasses from the big powerhouses and operations?
It’s easier.
It’s easier to feel better about yourself by using the path of least resistance. Plastic straws, plastic bags, recycle bins everywhere are and should be designed to be as easy to use as possible. Reducing how much smog a smokestack gives out? Much harder. So much harder that while most people have probably used a recycle bin, I doubt a percentage of them have advocated for the thing that is the larger part of the problem.
Posting a sad penguin, turtle, or polar bear suffering due to an object of pollution is sad and likely will prompt change (I know that pollution is a bit different than climate change in a general sense). The fact is that people are drawn to the path of least resistance. It’s economics. It is good that the tolerance for pollution is probably as low as it has ever been since the industrial revolution. This is due to our feeling and relationship with social media.
