Rendezvous with a Berliner*

While gazing lovingly at a jelly doughnut the other morning, I had a thought about the paradox of self-discipline.

One part of my brain is screaming: "Fat!" "Sugar!" "Fruit flavor elements traditionally diagnostic of vitamins!" "WTF are you waiting for!"

Meanwhile, a more dispassionate but immensely weaker voice is softly mumbling: "Like you need more fat?" "Or you think you have a sugar deficiency? That's really a an insulin excess, you dope!" "The flavor elements are a lie, a cunning, capitalist, bakeriest, confectionery lie. There are no essential nutrients here." and "Have the blankety-blank celery instead."

The higher intellectual functions are intended to mediate this type of dispute between immediate gratification and more sensible deferral, I suppose.

Relative prosperity means that more of us are faced with this kind of choice than were in our hunter-gatherer days. Libertarians, so I imagine, are cool with this, since it comes down to individual choice.

Similar choices confront us collectively. Living in a society dictates that society overrules some individual choices. No, you can't drive on any side of the road you want, you have to drive on the same side everybody else does. All laws are essentially restrictions on individual choice.

Global warming and other ecological threats confront us with the jelly doughnut problem writ large. As individuals, we love our air conditioning, big families, SUVs, and all those other things that make life worth living and destroy the planet's future.

Most global warming denial seems to stem more from opposition to its implication for collective action than from any serious analysis of the evidence. For the Libertarian, or the diehard disciple of Hayek, the necessity of collective action, especially collective action that limits the freedom of indviduals or nations, is anathema. It strikes at the core of their religion of market worship.

Very few, though, are willing to make the case purely in those terms. Instead, they come up with fanciful arguments intended to cast doubt on the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming, or cherry pick the evidence for chances that AGW might not really be serious. Hey, how could that little jelly doughnut really be bad for big old me?

Hint: if making the case for your philosophy requires ignoring facts and evidence, that philosophy might be bullshit.

Economists have a valid point when they say that dealing with anthropogenic global warming requires hard choices which have consequences that must be considered. When they invoke fanciful theories to deny what is happening, they have left science for magical thinking.

I wonder about the cake doughnuts. Are they as bad for me as the glazed and jelly filled ones?

-- CIP on parole

*Incidentally, there is a notion, popular in English speaking countries, that JFK, in his famous Ich bin ein Berliner speech was actually calling himself "a jelly doughnut." That is bullshit, and probably an early product of the Republican lying stupidity machine. See the link for details.